Republican Presidential Candidate Andy Martin challenges the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” to discuss and debate the disputed “facts” concerning Barack Obama’s nativity narrative.
ANDY MARTIN /2012
“The Right Republican” for
President of the United States
Join the New Ronald Reagan Revolution
375 Park Avenue, Suite 2607
New York, NY 10152
Tel. (866) 706-2639 Fax (866) 707-2639
April 12, 2011
Dear Mr. Kessler:
I have followed your career at the Post for decades, and I have nothing but the highest respect for your integrity and competence. So this letter is not intended to pick a fight over the so-called “Birther” debate. In point of fact, I created that controversy with my original research concerning Barack Obama’s religious heritage and opaque origins in Hawai’i.
Mr. Trump has now glommed on to this controversy and, after glomming off, Ms. Palin has glommed back on. My research, however, has been fact-based and consistent. Earlier this week I issued a statement defending Mr. Trump and that statement follows this letter.
First, although I filed one lawsuit against Hawai’i officials to secure access to the original document, I have never been a part of any of the stateside “Birther litigation.” I have never sued Obama.
Second, I have never given any credence to the “Kenyan birth” theory. My personal belief is that base on the available evidence Obama was indeed born in Hawai’i. Others disagree.
With these prefatory remarks, I would like to question various aspects of the acts you present.
First, there is an original, typewritten document that was produced in 1961 when Obama was born. It would be simple to authorize a release of that document. Similar birth records are widely available for comparison on the Internet. Obama has not done so. (I discuss the latest disclosures concerning the original document in my earlier statement, see below).
I have no doubt that Obama enjoys teasing his adversaries, and perhaps even believes the Birther controversy plays to his base. I have consistently published my view that if that Obama actually believes he benefits from the Birther controversy, he is mistaken. When you have over 100 million Americans doubting your origins, teasing your opponents and encouraging the base must take a back seat to conceding the corrosive impact that the Birther controversy is having on Obama’s presidency. Whether the 100 million + people who harbor these views are right or wrong is immaterial. They have these views. The president owes them better than legal mumbo jumbo.
So why not direct the release of the original document? It is indisputably a national historical archive.
Obama is hiding something on the original document. What it is I don’t know. I have my theories but I obviously can’t express factual opinions concerning a secret document.
Second, I have no doubt that the newspaper birth announcements were the result of state-generated reports (which is why I don’t question the Hawaiian birth as such). But here’s the real question: why did the Obamas (husband and wife?) use their in-laws address and not their own address on the hospital information? Why would a married couple use an erroneous address when they presumably, as husband and wife, had a marital residence of their own?
Or, looked at from the opposite view, what kind of a “marriage” did Obama’s parents have if they lived separately in the same general neighborhood, he alone and she with her mom and dad? Obama-the-father had an apartment; I believe he was listed in the local directories. (I am writing this away from my files.)(The physical building has since been torn down.)
Why list your in-laws’ address as your home when no one claims Mr. Obama ever lived with his in-laws? There was something peculiar, or even wrong, about the Obama “marriage.” Why would someone list an address as their “home” when they never lived there, and when they had a marital home of their own which is listed in public records? I don’t know, but once again the issue raises legitimate questions.
Third, when the stateside Birther lawsuits started in 2008 I predicted they would not succeed. So I don’t know any more about these lawsuits than you do. I have not followed them closely because in my professional opinion as a lawyer they were doomed to failure (my opinion proved correct). Mr. Trump appears to be basing Obama’s “$2 million legal bill” claim on published reports of the Obama campaign. While reasonable people can differ, there is no doubt that the payments to the Perkins firm have substantially involved Birther litigation, not campaign compliance. If there is a doubt, why doesn’t Obama clarify the matter? Why won’t Mr. Plouffe?
If, as you suggest, Obama& Co. believe they “profit” from the controversy I respectfully disagree. I believe the Birther matter does corrode Obama’s legitimacy. Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia seems to agree with me. Moreover, if Sabatao’s weekend remarks are correct, people in the White House take the Birther controversy a lot more seriously than they let on in public. Certainly Obama’s supporters have relentlessly harassed my own efforts to get at the truth. Why?
Fourth, you cannot view the Birth certificate issue in isolation. It is part of a pattern of deception and secrecy by Obama. Who paid for Punahou School, an expensive private school in Honolulu? Do you know who paid? His grandparents were obviously not wealthy. They lived in the same downmarket apartment for forty years.
Who paid for Occidental College? And Columbia? There is a record that Khalid al-Mansour was raising money for Harvard Law School. Mr. al-Mansour is, of course, highly controversial because of his pro-Saudi links and anti-white diatribes. If an anti-Black right-wing nut had raised money for Haley Barbour’s legal education would the media be so flaccid in pursuing the story? I think not.
Unlike the pro-Obama media, the public is judging the Birther controversy based on the totality of the secrecy and deception surrounding Mr. Obama’s personal history, not in isolation. You may not agree with that approach, but that is the way reasonable people assess the credibility of persons they encounter in everyday life. Is this person credible? Are they open and forthright? People have legitimate reasons to doubt Obama. The more the media hammer legitimate inquiries the greater the public suspicions.
Fifth, the “grandmother” issue. For years Barack Obama pretended that the Kenyan woman in question was his “granny.” Obama’s own local paper (Sun-Times) was fooled for a long period and used her photo (it’s a chapter in my book). I debunked the “Obama grandmother” fantasy in 2007 but Obama continued to pretend the Kenyan woman was some sort of direct relative. Is it any wonder the public was fooled by Obama’s own legerdemain when his own “granny” started talking? No one held a gun to her head.
I don’t believe the grandmother is a credible source; in fact I have serious doubts about her mental capacity.
But if Obama wants to continue to proffer her as a credible person, and play make-believe with his Kenyan relatives, why should the American public be criticized for accepting his own fantasies? The grandmother did indeed equivocate on the CNN “tape” about where Obama was born. But as I pointed out this week, she did not equivocate on whether she was present at his birth. Her answer was clear. She was there. She has never withdrawn that comment. Since she never left Kenya, Obama is relying on someone who could not have possibly been present to buttress his claim. Would any local police detective accept such an inconsistency and stop investigating? I think not.
Obama has placed a veil of secrecy over the hospital records as well. There have indeed been inconstant claims by family members about the actual hospital. That inconsistency is an established objective fact. So if family members were confused, why not the American public? All of this confusion could be eliminated if Obama simply directed the hospital and State of Hawai’i to release their records. He won’t do that. In fact, according to NBC News over the weekend he became “testy” even when releasing the COLB. Why testy?
Most presidential candidates would want to “buy” public confidence by being open, not fuel public suspicion by being secretive.
I did not write this letter to start a fight. You are entitled to your opinions, and tens of millions of people are entitled to their opinions based on the missing, contradictory or equivocal evidence. But you should not elevate your opinions to “facts,” and depreciate the equally compelling opinions or questions of others.
The essence of leadership is building confidence, not fostering doubts and spreading confusion. By this simple test, Obama has failed as a leader in putting to rest the questions about his very bizarre and convoluted family origins.
I don’t expect to change your mind. But I would urge you to reconsider reporting “facts” which are not undisputed facts, when there are contradictory “facts” or questions undermining your own accepted version of the truth. When the facts are in conflict, someone has to resolve the inconsistencies. To date, that has not been done in the case of Mr. Obama. That is why the doubts will persist and grow.
Two weeks ago I held a forum in Washington to present both sides of the controversy: http://www.NationalConferenceonObama.blogspot.com
My conference comments are on the Internet:
Andy Martin’s YouTube channel:
Andy Martin’s YouTube channel links:
I think you will agree my views were reasonable. I do not exceed the available evidence but I point to the reality that the actual “evidence” is mostly missing.
Perhaps The Fact Checker should concede that the “facts” are at least in dispute, and convene a forum at which these issues can be discussed in a civil and professional manner. No scholar, and no historian, would or could accept a COLB as historical evidence when there is an acknowledgement that the document is merely an “abstract” of a source document (see my news release which follows).
I hope these remarks have been helpful to you.
P.S. Last night I saw Obama’s illegal immigrant/welfare queen “aunt” on TV defending Obama. I also saw where (guess what network?) Obama’s sister is going on the air today to defend Obama. CNN, of course. I submit that Obama is a lot more worried about the Birther issue than he lets on. He only trots out his relatives to defend him when he is feeling the heat.
One doesn’t have to agree with all that I say and Mr. Trump says and Jerry Corsi says to agree that we are making a valuable contribution to ferreting out the truth about the mysterious Mr. Obama. Let’s see what CNN asks his sister tonight, and how his sister defends her brother. All of these “relative” appearances are designed to confuse and mislead the American public. The strategy of deception and prevarication succeeded once, in 2008. Will it succeed again in 2012. I don’t think so.
With best wishes,
(News release sent as separate email due to length, not as part of this letter)