DO YOU KNOW HOW ANDY MARTIN FEELS ABOUT OBAMA?

www.AndyforPresident.blogspot.com

www.AndyforPresident.wordpress.com

www.YouTube.com/Martinin2012

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

Republican Presidential candidate and conservative blogger Andy Martin became Barack Obama’s first critic in 2004; now the British government has confirmed all of Andy’s original research and writing

Andy says Obama was and is a political fraud, and remains a “man without a country”

Andy says he is delighted that the recently-released British government colonial files confirm all of his original, exclusive investigation of Barack Obama in 2004

(PALM BEACH) (April 22, 2012) Eight years after I began using my unique worldwide resources to expose President Barack Obama’s bogus family history, the British government has finally released colonial-era records that document and confirm all of my early writing and research in 2004 about then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama’s Kenyan “family history.”

Drawing on my access to sources in the United Kingdom I held simultaneous news conferences in London and New York (see the original PR newswire link below) to expose then-State Senator Barack Obama’s “nativity story” as a fraud. My research and writing was life-changing for both the future president and for me.

Since 2004 the Obama smear machine has been sharply focused on attacking me and trying to undermine my factual and truthful research and writing. On the other hand, unlike the complacent and compliant “mainstream media” Obama propaganda machine, I developed an expertise on now-President Obama’s “family history” in Hawai’i and Kenya that no one has been able to duplicate.

Two of the principal disclosures I made on August 11, 2004 were that [1] President Obama’s father had been a radical Mau Mau-linked rebel who was sent to the United States for his own safety and that [2] Obama’s family was strongly and solidly Muslim. There were no Christians in Obama’s Kenyan family tree. Later I was to write about Obama’s “citizenship” questions. I lit a fire that has never been extinguished. Today tens, perhaps hundred of millions, of people have some doubt about Obama’s origins. All these concerns originate from my August 11, 2004 news conference.

So what did I do in 2004 and how did Obama later respond?

First, I pointed out that far from being a mere “student,” Barack Obama Senior was part of a family of radicalized Kenyans that was opposing British rule in East Africa. This month, fifty years later, the British government publicly released files that confirm my original claims concerning Obama’s father. The President’s father was under surveillance when he left Kenya for the United States in 1959 (see links below).

Second, I linked Obama’s family to the notorious Mau Mau movement (see YouTube video link). My family lived in Oxford, England during the peak of the Mau Mau rebellion and I was exposed to British media reporting.

My claim that the Obama family was linked to the Mau Mau is now finally and fully confirmed. Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned under harsh conditions for two years by the British colonial administration as a suspected Mau Mau (see links below). President Obama initially denied my reporting. Later he embraced my accusations and quietly leaked the explanation that he was anti-British because of his father’s and grandfather’s experiences in Kenya.

On the issue of the Obama family religion, to this day liberal media refer to the fact that Obama’s Kenyan family was strongly and completely Muslim as a “rumor.” Under the Islamic faith, religious heritage descends from the father, not the mother. If your father is or was a Muslim, you are automatically born a Muslim. (Note: I have also presented a theory or hypothesis that Barack Obama Senior was not the biological father of the president, and that the Kenyan Obama was merely a stand-in for a married man in Honolulu, Frank Marshall Davis. If my theory is eventually vindicated, as I believe it will be after Obama leaves the White House, Obama would no longer have been born a Muslim and he would have indisputably been a “natural born citizen.” I’ll be writing about the “Frank” connection in a couple of days in our coming “Countdown to Honolulu.”)

As the anti-Obama movement grew into the tens of million in 2008, Obama tried to demonize his opponents by using Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to smear me with decades-old accusations. Instead of discouraging the Obama opposition, Gibbs’s malicious attacks on me, when coupled with more smears against me in the New York Times, only increased the intensity and numbers of Obama’s opponents. Through all of Obama’s carpet bombing of my integrity and reputation I have steadfastly maintained a relatively sympathetic approach to Obama’s family history. I have always insisted on searching only for the truth and finding only the facts (see YouTube video from 2008).

Now that the British government has released its colonial-era files, all of my original research and writing has been confirmed and corroborated. State Senator Barack Obama was a “family fraud.” In addition, he has vehemently and consistently denied his Kenyan family’s Muslim religion. Obama has admitted his dislike of the British because of Britain’s harsh opposition to the Mau Mau. I am very proud that my research and commentary has stood the test of time. My sources were impeccable. My facts were unassailable. And it is President Obama who ends up looking like he was a liar from the gitgo.

I am not angry. I feel sorry for Barack Hussein Obama. President Obama is a man without a religion, and a man without a country. In denying his identity he has lost his identity. Indeed, it is his very psychological suppleness and his personal pliability (and Republican Party incompetence) that landed Obama in the White House.

Will Obama manage to fool the American people a second time? I leave for Honolulu on May 2nd for a new and continuing investigation of the Mysterious Mr. Obama. If you want only the facts and only the truth about the president’s past, keep reading my dispatches and commentary.

--------------------------

MEDIA CONTACT: HQ: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: Andy@AndyMartinforPresident.com

--------------------------

Please Donate:

www.AndyMartinforPresident.com

--------------------------

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

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/

columnist-says-barack-obama-lied-to-the-

american-people-asks-publisher-to-

withdraw-obamas-book-71586122.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktWxdPH6naI&feature=player_embedded

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/14036/4115

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZwON6dKHks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/

article-2131290/Revealed-Official-

fears-U-S-UK-President-Obamas-anti-

American-anti-white-

father.html?printingPage=true

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/

05/25/obamas-reference-to-kenyan-roots-

draws-applause-in-britain/#more-108153

Andy Martin and the Hawaiian Court re Obama

ANDY MARTIN
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail (text only):
AndyMart20@aol.com


CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII

CIVIL NUMBER:
08-1-2147-10-BIA
(Declaratory Judgment)

ANDY MARTIN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

LINDA LINGLE, in her
Official capacity as Governor
Of the State of Hawai'i,
DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her
official capacity as Director
of the Department of Health,

Defendants.
_________________________________


MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S
ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008

Preliminary Statement

The Court managed to take what is at its core a simple and straightforward case seeking review of denial of access to a Hawai'i record, and to add layers of confusion and complexity that were totally unwarranted by the record made in open court on November 18th. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider, vacate and rehear the matters decided on November 19th using the correct procedures and standards of law.
Plaintiff initially thought that he would appeal the order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, but it would be a disservice to that Court to appeal such a mangled and needlessly confused record from the trial forum. Thus, the Rule 59 motion (see below) stays any appeal until a decision on this motion.

1. Procedural basis for reconsideration

Plaintiff is not aware if a judgment has been entered since he has not been served with any such document. Prior to entry of a judgment a Court has plenary power to review and reconsider an order. This motion is also filed under H.R.Civ.P. 59.

2. The Court applied an imaginary standard
to plaintiff's motion

Plaintiff's motion is attached as exhibit A. Plaintiff sought access to a birth certificate after denial by the defendants. In no place did the Plaintiff ever mention the word "injunction" and nothing in Plaintiff's motion constituted a request for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a remedy usually entered to preserve the status quo. Plaintiff was not seeking the preservation of any status quo. He was seeking review of denial of access to a historic public record, and asked the Court to expedite the matter based on both a lack of a factual dispute and intense national interest in the document. Neither of these issues converted a review proceeding into an injunction matter.
Despite the lack of any pleading seeking injunctive relief, the Court mischaracterized plaintiff's motion for review of denial of access as an "injunction" and then applied the heightened standard applicable to injunctive proceedings as a pretext to dismiss the action. This was clear error and a serious abuse of discretion.
For the court to create an imaginary request for an injunction and then deny that imaginary request deprived Plaintiff of due process of law.
Thus, the entirety of the Court's order is void for want of due process and must be reheard under a correct standard of review. The Court's behavior clearly "exceeded the bounds of reason [and] disregard rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Amfac v. Waikiki Beachcomber, 74 Haw. 85, 839 P.2d. 10, 26 (Haw. 1992).

3. The Court decided a nonexistent standing issue

Plaintiff sought access to a historic document on two grounds: (i) a Health statute vesting as court with authority to direct release, and (ii) the Hawai'i UIPA. Both the statute, which vests the court with discretion to hear requests for access, and the UIPA, provide for review by this Court. There is thus a statutory grant of standing to seek review of a denial of access.
There is no "standing" issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff does not need to show "injury" to seek access to a historic Hawai'i record. The AG's claim was complete nonsense. Why the Attorney General sought to garbage-up the record with bogus standing claims is a question that should concern the court. Why the Court threw in standing as an afterthought as a basis for dismissal, when there is no such issue, is bizarre.

4. Service of process was timely made

This lawsuit was filed in mid-October. Plaintiff sought to expedite the proceedings because of the intense national interest. He lives in Chicago. He is based in New York, some 8,000 miles from the forum. The Court entered an order to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. Defendants claimed they had not been served (which has no bearing on an order to show cause, which they admitted had been served; at hearing they admitted they had also been served with the original pleadings on October 17th). After defendants objected and demanded service a second time, Plaintiff served the defendants and filed his proof of service on November 19th. Thus, there was not the remotest basis for dismissal on the basis of failure to serve the defendants.
The Court's apparent attempt to impose thirty days as a basis for dismissal is an unreasonable period to impose on Plaintiff to serve defendants a second time when he is an out of state litigant. Plaintiff was well within the applicable time limits when he served the defendants and no reasonable person could argue to the contrary.

5. The court ignored the state of the record

Plaintiff was seeking review of a denial of access to a historic public record. As Plaintiff set forth, there was a serious waiver issue, since the parties themselves had discussed the document openly, and the "document" has falsely been portrayed as already being disclosed. The Court ignored the waiver issue. Based on the lack of any response by the defendants, waiver mandated release of the document.

Conclusion

At a certain point, the comulatative errors in this proceeding raise an inference of harassment of an out-of-state litigant. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, a non-Hawai'i resident should obtain the same due process that a native or resident receives. Hawai'i is not a private club that is maintained for the benefit of insiders.
Plaintiff came before the Court in good faith seeking access to a historic document. There is not a shred of evidence in the record to defeat his claim. The court's constant mischaracterization of his claims and misapplication of the rules constitute a breach of judicial decorum.
The dismissal should be vacated and the matter should be heard before a judge who will faithfully and fairly apply the law. If this Court honestly disagrees with Plaintiff's arguments, it should simply say so and send a clean record to the ICA, and not try to create cobwebs to conceal legerdemain and prevarication based on an attempt to evade the obviously applicable facts and principles of law.

Dated: New York, NY
October 25, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
Plaintiff Pro se

Andy Martin and Obama

Republican leader Andy Martin says this is a "time for national disunity"
We must become the loyal opposition today, loyal to the Constitution and not to the pretender, the Emperor Obama I
Martin says that a president who won't release his birth certificate is an illegitimate leader

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

"Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ANDY MARTIN CALLS FOR "NATIONAL DISUNITY"

LEGACY OF POPULAR HOSTILITY TO BUSH WILL NOT LINGER BEYOND HIS TERM, SAYS MARTIN

HOW CAN WE TRUST A PRESIDENT-ELECT WHO IS AFRAID TO RELEASE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, ANDY ASKS?

"LEGAL OPPOSITION" BEGINS TODAY, CONTINUES IN HONOLULU NOVEMBER 18TH

ANTI-OBAMA AUTHOR BECOMES "LOYAL OPPOSITION," LOYAL TO THE CONSTITUTION

(CHICAGO)(November 5, 2008) As these notes are finished the winner of the presidential election is Barack Obama. McCain has surrendered.

Senator John McCain spoke graciously, "congratulating" president-elect Obama. But he did not call for "national unity" as the liberal cable TV bobbleheads were demanding.

The sweetness of Obama's victory will not linger beyond the morning dew. The bitterness Obama will generate in the days ahead will linger for the next four years.

Nine years ago I broadcast an ad that said "George Bush wants to bomb Iraq." The Bush Brothers, Jeb and George, attacked me. I was the first name on the new president's enemies list. But I had warned the American people. I knew Bush would be a disaster. I never anticipated just how great a disaster. In 2002 I spoke out and marched against the invasion of Iraq and called it a folly. I was one of the first to report the failures in Baghdad, from Baghdad, where I spent most of 2003.

Today the Bush Dynasty is a shambles, totally defunct. He leaves a legacy of disgrace.

The Bush legacy will be a bitter one, bitter for Republicans because it disrupted and destroyed their party, and bitter for Democrats because their party was misled into electing a Marxist-Leninist who will prove as toxic to Democrats as Bush was to Republicans. I worked in the 89th Congress. I saw President Johnson's landslide of 1964 reverse itself in 1966. "Change" is coming to America. In 2010. Ultimately, the Bush legacy will not be a lingering one. Bush will be remembered as a decent man who was betrayed by his closest advisers.

The bottom line: I am a Republican, but not a Republican who puts party above national interests, or partisan devotion above the Constitution. I have been a corruption-fighter and reformer since my days at the University of Illinois. I will remain so.

Today I am pleased and proud to be the first name on Barack Obama's enemies list, and to brand him the "Illegitimate President."

Senator Obama's victory is a hollow and illegitimate one.
He won by undermining our democratic institutions and by reintroducing dirty money into presidential campaigns. There can be no accommodation with a president who was elected with hundreds of millions of dollars in clandestine campaign cash.

Today I also become a leader of the loyal opposition that will stand against the policies Senator Obama supported during the campaign. The election may be over. The battle for America is just beginning.

Here is the first draft of our essential, basic truths:

There can be no accommodation with a president who refuses to release his birth certificate and establish his true identity.

I do not congratulate Mr. Obama on his illegitimate victory; I reciprocate his contempt for the American people by being contemptuous of his "victory." Obama is a pretender to the presidency. Fool us once, Obama, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.

If ever there was a time for national disunity, this is that time. Preparations must begin immediately for the inevitable victory in 2010.

There can be no accommodation with a man who claims his victory is "righteous," and that his opponents are evil. I will not demonize Obama but I will not allow him to demonize his critics either, by cloaking his claims in false piety.

John McCain tried to play by the rules and he got screwed. I congratulate Senator McCain on the final result. I stayed loyal to him to the end. Given the fatal errors he made, he did extremely well and limited the ultimate, long-term injury to the Republican Party.

Now we must defend the Constitution and prevent Obama from undermining our institutions and establishing an electoral dictatorship similar to that of his hero Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Sadly, Republicans are better at playing defense than they are at running an offense. That was why they did so well in 1995-2001, and why they have done so poorly since then. While I recognize Obama's illegitimacy as a political leader, I do not doubt that many of the positions he espoused are popular. Some may even be necessary. But the glow and aftermath of his victory will fade faster than anyone can now imagine.

Obama was elected for one reason: because George Bush undermined America. Bush started an unnecessary war in Iraq, and he pursued domestic policies that lost sight of the needs of ordinary Americans. John McCain paid the price for having flown too close to Bush, a fatal error in any pilot. McCain should have anticipated and avoided that risk.

Barack Obama has given the Republican Party a loud wake-up call. The party has been trapped in the throes of cultural extremism. We must renew and revise our guiding principles and throw open our doors to what will be a steady stream of victims of "Obamaism." Instead of a pro-life/pro-choice party, we must become an all-American and all-Americans party. We must be everything Obama is not: for a sound defense and a strong economy. Opportunity, not redistribution. And that's it. Just as Jesus chased the money-changers from the temple, we must chase the right-wing profiteers from the Republican temple. One nation. One Party. No outcasts. All are welcome.

By default, I have also become the "legal opposition." I will be in court in Honolulu on November 18th seeking a court order to open Barack Obama's secret birth certificate. What is in the document that Mr. Obama does not want the American people to see? Until his family history is revealed, and until his birth certificate is made public, Obama will be an illegitimate president and a pretender in the White House.

When I warned people four years ago about Barack Obama, no one would listen. Is anyone listening now?