Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Silent Coup in the Pentagon: What really happened in Afghanistan

 

 

ANDY MARTIN       

Republican for U. S. Senator 2022

New Hampshire

 

www.AndyMartin2020.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

Headquarters:

E-mail: AndyforUSSenator@aol.com

P.O. Box 742

Manchester, NH 03105-0742

Cellphone: (347) 960-9593

Fax (866) 214-3210

Blogs:

www.AndyMartin2020.blogspot.com

www.AndyMartin2020.wordpress.com

 

[Please feel free to post, repost and email this letter, with the copyright notice attached]

 

 

Dear Granite Stater:

 

The dodos in the Biden administration, starting from President “Dodo” Biden on down, would have you believe they were totally caught off guard when the Afghan military collapsed. That claim is true, in part, as you will read below. Biden was surprised. He believed his own b.s.

 

Based on my reporting, however, I believe the explanation for the collapse in Kabul was the result of a “silent coup” in the Pentagon. The collapse in Afghanistan was not a random event. It was engineered at the highest levels of our military. Amazingly, it is part of an ongoing series of situations where our military leaders have sought to protect officials from the risks created by presidential hubris and incompetence.

 

What you are about to read is original reporting based on extensive analysis and decades of military and intelligence experience.

 

I am calling what has happened since April, 2021 a “silent coup.” What do I mean? The military was given bad orders by President Biden. They were given orders that betrayed the sacrifice of our men and women since 2001. They were given orders that defied logic. They were given orders that would lead to the collapse of Afghanistan. They were given orders that could and will endanger our national security. And they carried out those orders to a letter. To a “t.” They knew that total “compliance” would lead to complete collapse. They even warned Biden and his boys what was going to happen.

 

And President Joe slept through all of it.

 

Since April, 2021 our military leadership has complied with Joe Biden’s ill-advised orders so meticulously that “compliance” ended up strangling his presidency. That “compliance” with orders which were obviously going to lead to disaster, is the basis for what has become in effect a silent coup. No fingerprints were left behind by the silent coup. There were no critical statements by the highest echelons of the military leadership. No “revolt of the generals.” But in the end, total compliance with Biden’s orders were used by Pentagon leaders to destroy his administration.

 

Mission accomplished.

 

1. What is “the military?”

 

We use the term “the military” and “the Pentagon” without giving much thought to what these institutions really are. We have an all-volunteer force; no one is forced to join our military services.

 

Almost all of our men and women in uniform are patriots. Almost all join out of patriotism. We draw a lot of volunteers from southern states, as well as rural areas. We also draw a large segment of our forces from minorities in urban areas.

 

When Biden made a retired military officer Secretary of Defense, he made a classic error. Secretary Austin spent decades in a highly successful career; he made it to multi-star general. Austin had absorbed the military ethos. Ultimately, as the Biden withdrawal fiasco proceeded, Austin could not betray his fellow officers and sound the alarm.

 

Military leaders are loyal to their civilian leaders. The system works well, as the Constitution intended. But high-ranking officers are not mere automatons. They also think for themselves. They know what will work and what won’t.

 

And when, as in the case of Biden, the president gave patently self-destructive and disloyal orders to the the Pentagon, generals decided to rebel in a novel way: by strictly and immediately and expeditiously complying with Biden’s orders, fully knowing such compliance would backfire and cause the Afghan mission to collapse in disgrace. Biden would get payback for ignoring military advice and his presidency would be mortally wounded.

 

The plan worked just as it was intended: Biden never knew what hit him in mid-August. The military “plot” succeeded beyond Biden’s wildest potential nightmares. By conducting a virtual silent coup through compliance, no one in the Biden hierarchy saw the disaster coming. Threw are no fingerprints of recalcitrant generals. Biden’s order had destroyed his administration.

 

General Austin probably supported the military’s advice in April to suspend an immediate withdrawal. But once the “plan” to “comply by excess” began, Austin was silent. That’s why Austin has been a “missing person” in the past few days. He knows what happened and he knows why and how it happened. Austin saw the silent coup unfold and he did not stop it because he couldn’t. His first loyalty was still to the military culture that had rewarded him.

 

Biden, on the other hand, was so blinded by hubris he didn’t realize the military’s immediate compliance with his order would become a weapon against him.

 

2. How did we start down the slippery slide to military activism?

 

Military activism began during the Obama administration. President Obama’s rigid doctrines about shutting down our presence in Iraq was based on his own ill-informed misconceptions. Because Obama’s ideas were contrary to military recommendations, the military “complied” with Obama’s orders by immediately removing troops and setting the stage for the Isis resurgence.

 

When Obama went further and called the resurgent Isis a “JV team,” the military responded by hanging back and allowing the terrorist organization to expand exponentially, again embarrassing Obama. Finally, Obama was forced to go back to the military and seek advice, which he again rejected. The result: a stalemate in Syria/Iraq when President Trump took office.

 

Trump was initially a hero to the military. When he allowed the command structure to perform, the results were spectacular. Isis was soon routed.

 

But when Trump decided to act as his own general and review deployments for political efficacy, disaster soon followed. After a phone call with the Turk dictator Erdogan, Trump announced he was abandoning the Kurds and allowing the Turkish army to take territory in Syria. Pentagon leaders were dumfounded. Trump took a stable area and wantonly destabilized it. Predictably, the betrayal of the Kurds resulted in chaos. But the military used its bureaucracy to partially nullify Trump’s edicts.

 

Trump tried to totally withdraw from Syria to claim a political benefit. But the troops are still there under Biden. Trump was probably surprised by how resilient the Syria mission was; it was reduced but never eliminated despite his insistent demands.

 

3. What did Biden order and how did the military comply? Totally

 

Biden’s order in April was simple. Get out. Biden set a date, 9/11, which was later moved.

 

The military had advised that a complete and precipitous withdrawal would be a disaster. Biden rejected that advice.

 

The silent coup began.

 

Instead of using military expertise to carefully plan the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pentagon leaders ignored sound policies and simply ordered U S troops out of Afghanistan.

 

The shock was felt in Afghanistan, where soldiers heard about Biden’s order and saw U S forces quickly packing. Shortages of food and ammunition followed. The supply pipeline to Afghan forces went dry.

 

In mid-May I noted that, surprisingly, a large part of the U S presence was already gone. Dangerously so. I realized that the Afghan army would be demoralized by the virtually instant disappearance of U S forces. The departure of the American troops was a clear signal to their Afghan counterparts they were being abandoned on a rushed basis.

 

In May I said to my associate, “this withdrawal looks like ‘compliance with a vengeance’” with Biden’s order. The hasty withdrawal will bring down the Afghan government and destroy Biden’s plan to avoid a catastrophe. The military’s literal submission to Biden’s diktat rendered Biden’s dangerous order a time bomb.

 

There was no protest from the senior ranks in the Pentagon once Biden issued his ill-advised order. Generals complied with his command so literally that their immediate “compliance” to get out became a form of resistance to the self-destructive directive. By immediately complying with Biden’s order to get out on an expedited basis, the military was abandoning its usual expertise to plan a slower, but safer, removal of U S forces.

 

By mid-July the US was, unexpectedly, almost completely out of Afghanistan; ironically, this is where Biden and his posse were ambushed. They had no idea that the military’s compliance with the withdrawal order would lead to an immediate collapse of the Afghan government. Biden thought he was a genius for orchestrating a hasty withdrawal. The military knew better. The silent coup was in progress.

 

The net result: Biden’s ill-advised order triggered a de facto silent coup. Instead of publicly challenging Biden’s order, the military decided to take the opposite tack and comply instantly, while fully aware that their original advice to “go slow” was the correct approach. Biden’s order, on the other hand, would lead to an embarrassing collapse.

 

The collapse came soon after Bagram Air Base was abandoned, literally in the night. The Afghans were stunned, and humiliated. The U S military would normally have no reason to humiliate the Afghans and would not have done so. But by complying with Biden’s order on an instant basis, the Afghan military got the signal they feared. All was lost.

 

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once said Joe Biden has been wrong on virtually every major foreign policy and military decision of the past forty (40!) years [please see Link # 1 below]. Thus, there was no way military leaders could communicate with a stubborn old man whose cognitive ability, i.e. his ability to reason and process complex information, was all but gone. Biden could not process the situational awareness of the rapidly collapsing situation in Kabul.

 

In the end, Biden has created his own latest and greatest crisis. The military helped expedite Biden’s downfall by complying literally and immediately with the president’s misguided order. The silent coup succeeded. The military had their revenge and Biden will go down in history for the most spectacular military failure in 75 years.

 

4. Who were the “Afghan military and security forces?”

 

It seems as though everyone is trashing the Afghan military. Except me. As I wrote yesterday, we tasked a small local force with garrisoning an entire nation. From the outset, it was an impossible task. But we also created the Afghan military in our own image, totally meshed in order for coordination with U S forces. No one ever designed the Afghan military to fight an enemy on its own, without air support, without massive supply networks and without intelligence oversight from above.

 

President Barry Obama started down fantasy lane in 2014 when he initiated the myth that Afghan soldiers were a separate army that would be expected to fight the Taliboys without the combined support that was necessary. Trump and Biden picked up on the fantasy that the Afghan military could be totally independent of our assistance. It never was and never could be. It wasn’t designed that way. We designed it to work with us, seamlessly.

 

When we withdrew our support of the Afghan forces, they collapsed.

 

5. How long will the Kabul disaster drag on?

 

I can’t say for sure, but I think the ongoing disaster in Kabul is going to drag on a lot longer than the Left anticipates or Joe Biden can tolerate.

 

Unless the Taliboys make a move against us or allied forces, arrangements to complete the withdrawal of tens of thousands of people could drag on for several weeks. Once again, Biden has set August 31 as a final pullout date. But that date is totally unrealistic given the tens of thousands of Americans and others who need to exit Afghanistan. Once again, Biden is setting himself up for disgrace and defeat.

 

The withdrawal from Kabul is going to dominate news coverage into the foreseeable future. The Left will not be happy. They will be looking for scapegoats, but they won’t be able to find any. There are no fingerprints left behind by the silent coup.

 

6. Where do we go from here?

 

The Left would like to blame the military for the Afghan collapse. But, on the contrary, it was Joe Biden’s capricious orders, and the Pentagon’s immediate, total and unconditional compliance with Biden’s asinine directives, that created conditions for the collapse we confront in Kabul.

 

Our military is just as well-organized and effective today as it ever was. Consider, within hours of being ordered, we had thousands of troops on their way to Kabul. Our system worked. If the Taliboys attempt to intimidate the U. S. Marines and the 82nd Airborne Division, the Taliboys will be obliterated. (Note to file: the “military” didn’t lose Afghanistan; the craven politicians on Capitol Hill and their media lackeys did.)

 

President Biden has some power in Kabul today only because our military works, and because it is organized to face the limitless challenges we face.

 

Biden wants to dismantle military spending and devote the money to day care centers and welfare payments for parents. It won’t happen. Republicans understand what Democrats deny. We need a strong military to defend our way of life.

 

Although the phrase has also been attributed to Winston Churchill, George Orwell is credited with the following words:

 

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

 

What do those words mean? They mean that in order for us to enjoy our quality of life, and the freedoms we often take for granted, we need to train and have ready to deploy men and women who can do extreme violence to our enemies. Extreme violence. Not politicians’ hot air.

 

This week we saw proof of Orwell’s remarks. The politicians screwed up, yes both Trump and Biden. But in baseball terms, Biden is credited with the loss. Within minutes of the emergency, we had forces deploying around the world to rescue Americans and our Afghan supporters.

 

We have taken control of Kabul Airport. While the situation is fluid and chaotic, the Taliboys will try to avoid challenging the U S. If they attack, the Taliboys will be obliterated. We can rely on our forces because we honor and respect them. No other nation in history has had such a continuing tradition of maintaining strength through peace. In our country, “Thank you for your service” means something. Loyalty. The kind of loyalty Democrats lack for our men and women in uniform.

 

As for Joe Biden, in silent and secret ways, his administration is now on the dung heap of history. Biden may not be removed from office until 2025, but his presidency is over.

 

Say it ain’t so, Joe.

 

[More to come, stay tuned. We are monitoring the dangerous situation in Kabul.]

 

Best wishes,

 

Andy

 

---

 

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

 

Link #1:

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/16/biden-has-been-wrong-on-every-major-foreign-policy/

 

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

 

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With over fifty (50) years of background in radio and television and with decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

 

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

 

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 www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

 

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today he is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

 

UPDATES:

 

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

 

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

 

[NOTES: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.

 

Rather than create new blogs for 2022, we are using our old 2020 blogs going forward since nothing has changed.

 

----------

 

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

 

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2021 – All Rights Reserved

Andy Martin analyzes the Afghanistan military implosion and explains the Biden Administration’s explosion

 

 

ANDY MARTIN       

Republican for U. S. Senator 2022

New Hampshire

 

www.AndyMartin2020.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

Headquarters:

E-mail: AndyforUSSenator@aol.com

P.O. Box 742

Manchester, NH 03105-0742

Cellphone: (347) 960-9593

Fax (866) 214-3210

Blogs:

www.AndyMartin2020.blogspot.com

www.AndyMartin2020.wordpress.com

 

 

Dear Granite Stater:

 

Sunday, August 15, 2021 was one of the worst days in American history. The Afghan government imploded; the collapse in Kabul exploded the myth that Joe Biden is capable of leading the U. S. government. We have a national security crisis on our hands.

 

America’s political class, led by Zombie President Joe Biden, betrayed the American people, betrayed the Afghan people and massively increased the terror threat to the continental United States. Earlier, Biden said leaving Kabul would not resemble the catastrophe in Saigon in 1975. I agree with Joe! The departure from Kabul is much, much worse; the the long-term consequences will be much more dangerous for our national security than the Saigon debacle.

 

I have spent a large part of my adult life as an independent national security analyst and operator. You can see a resume of my experience below in “How Andy Became a Terrorism Expert.” I first went to Afghanistan in 1980, in an insanely dangerous mission to gather information about the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invasion. I worked alone, with one Afghan aide. We managed to drive into Herat. How I survived, I’ll never know. Afghanistan and I go back a long way.

 

Like many, I have questioned Joe Biden’s mental health. Biden’s competence is now front and center:


President Obama’s ambassador to Afghanistan stated openly that “I’m left with some grave questions in my mind about [Biden’s] ability to lead our nation as commander-in-chief,” [Ryan] Crocker said. “To have read this so wrong – or, even worse, to have understood what was likely to happen and not care.” [Please see Link # 1 below]. Crocker said the Afghan fiasco is “already an indelible stain on [Biden’s] presidency.” [Please see link #2 below]

 

The humiliation we saw in 1975 when Americans were lifted off the roof of the U. S. Embassy in Saigon has been reprised. Biden has sent in 5,000 troops to manage the evacuation; many thousands more than Trump had left behind to manage the withdrawal. While no firefights have broken out as I am writing, if U. S. forces stay long enough to evacuate Afghans who have been loyal to us and who were promised safe passage, conflict is inevitable.

 

None of this national failure was necessary. But as America has done so often in the postwar period, we have allowed our own bloated rhetoric to undermine sound foreign policy.

 

More critically, we have allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good. In claiming no perfect solution is available in Afghanistan, we have destroyed the good efforts that existed. Millions of young girls were in school; now they are out. Tens of millions of people slept safely; now a terror regime has been imposed. When was the last time former President Ghani beheaded someone? Now, a bad pun: “heads will roll” in Kabul. Thanks to Joey Biden.

 

No, Afghanistan was not perfect, not by a long shot. But it was struggling to survive in a very dangerous neighborhood. Now all of our progress has been erased. In a few weeks, terror networks will reconstitute themselves.

 

Biden, who claimed he would “not send another generation of Americans to Afghanistan,” has guaranteed that another generation, or two, of Americans will have to return to Afghanistan to clean up the mess he created.

 

1. The Afghan military did not “collapse;” it was betrayed

 

The Afghan military and security forces do not have the esprit de corps of the U. S. Marines or NYPD. But Afghan soldiers performed decently. Who designed and created the Afghan military? We did (the U. S. military). We created a conventional military force to fight a “revolutionary war,” one driven by zealotry and not by mercenary interests, the same kind I have been studying since 1965. The Afghans expected air strikes, artillery, mobile support, high-tech resources and expansive surveillance and intelligence to support them. That’s how we trained them. To be an adjunct and to be interoperable with our own military. We created the Afghan forces in our own image. Then we abandoned them.

 

How long would U. S. forces last without air cover, without armor, without intelligence and without multiple weapons systems? Not long.

 

Sound familiar?

 

In fact, this is the second time Democrats have betrayed an allied military in the battlefield. The South Vietnamese military was also created in our image. Then Democrats in congress voted to “defund” South Vietnam forces. The result: a collapse of Saigon. Forty-fix years later we are repeating the same arrogant incompetence which the Democrats first “deployed” against Viet-Nam. Bingo.

 

Don’t blame the Afghan military. They did as well as can be expected when their de facto overlords, the Democratic Party in congress, started undermining them during the Obama-Biden administration. History repeats itself; so do Democratic Party military fiascos.

 

2. There was no “intelligence failure”

 

One of the false narratives being offered by Biden supporters is that the Afghan collapse is an “intelligence failure.” Northing is further from the truth. For years intelligence agencies have predicted that of if we abandoned the Afghan forces, they would collapse. No surprise there. Intelligence agencies all over the world, including communist spy organs, predicted exactly what would happen if Biden withdrew precipitously.

 

3. Biden’s delusions have exploded his presidency and the Democrats

 

Biden said last month that he had an [imaginary] “over-the-horizon” capacity to defend Afghanistan. Where was it when the Taliban was laying siege to Afghan cities? Nowhere. Bien’s over-the-horizon force was a delusion. America did not come to the defense of Afghan troops. Biden’s total incompetence, and the total incompetence of his officials, such as the disgraceful and incompetent Secretary of State Blinken, have exploded his presidency.

 

Out of nowhere, out of the blue in Biden’s mind, the Democratic Party has been bombed into disgrace and destruction by their own demented leader. “Who me?” they say. They want to blame Trump for Biden’s disaster. Trump is not responsible for Biden’s collapse.

 

4. Does honor mean anything to America?

 

I have lost track of the number of times both parties have betrayed our allies. The Kurds? Betrayed by Democrats and Republicans, tossed out like used toilet paper when they had served their purpose. Over and over again. Obama said Isis was a “JV team,” and then had to send forces to defeat his imaginary opponent; only ISIS was not imaginary. It took President Trump to clean out the Isis rat’s nest.

 

What do all of these betrayals mean? America’s political leaders, in both parties, lack any sense of national honor. Ten years ago, members of congress started asking for Special Immigrant Visas” (“SIV”) for Afghans who has worked for the U.S. Ten years later, noting had been done. Biden tried to dump the issue on congress. It was only after Biden pulled the plug on Afghanistan that the administration even started thinking about SIV’s. When Afghan workers and their families, as well as others who worked for US operations such as the media and aid organizations, are totaled up, there are over 100,000 people and their dependents that need to be evacuated. How many will die needlessly, because of American perfidiousness? Many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.

 

America needs to address its lack of national honor and its betrayals of the commitments it has made to foreign nationals who support our troops in the field. To a military man or woman, honor means everything, it’s why they serve. When the politicians behave dishonorably, they stain the service and sacrifice of our own military forces.

 

5. Is twenty years enough, when national security is at stake?

How the media have betrayed Americans

 

I started out in life as a pollster in college. A poll is only as good as the question asked. If you ask, “Should we bring our troops back home?” almost everyone will say “Yes.” But if you ask, “Should we bring our troops back home if the result is going to be endangering national security and cause the homeland to be jeopardized?” not many people would say yes. The media asked trick questions, and fooled the American people into believing we could withdraw from Afghanistan effortlessly and without any long-term danger to our own nation.

 

Biden’s people claim they were “surprised” by the Afghan collapse. Funny, no one else was. Everyone who has ever focused on terrorism and intelligence knew what was ahead. The head of British intelligence, MI6, predicted a collapse if Afghanistan was abandoned. [Please see Link 3 below) So what was the Biden plan? Where were the resources? There were none. Afghan troops lacked food and ammunition How can any army fight under such circumstances?

 

6. The Mollie Hemingway doctrine

 

Perhaps the most idiotic comment I saw was from Mollie Hemingway, a commentator who said we should have an “In/Out” military policy. Hemingway seems to believe once hostilities cease, U. S. forces should high tail it and abandon the battlefield to our former adversaries.

 

Biden himself fed into this expedient narrative and said, “We’ve been there too long. The world has shifted.” Says who?

 

Mollie Hemingway has the answer: her “get in-get out” strategy. Utter nonsense. What would have happened if we withdrew from Europe in 1945? Stalin would have taken over Europe. What if we had left Japan in 1945? The militaristic Japanese military might have revived.

 

When you pledge to stay, your word is your bond. We have promised to protect Europe. Biden brags about “America being back” in NATO. Joe’s malarkey. Who will believe him after the Afghan catastrophe? The US has promised to protect Taiwan. Do the Taiwanese feel comfortable after “Kabul?” The thugs in China and the gangsters in Russia are salivating at the prospect of an enfeebled America. Biden’s problems are just beginning.

 

Biden and his crew of crackpot incompetents are endangering our national security. “And that’s no joke,” as Joey himself would say. “For real.”

 

To be continued.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Andy

 

-----

 

[How Andy Martin became a terrorism and counterterrorism expert:

 

Andy has over fifty years of experience in Asia, Southwest Asia and the Middle East; he is regarded overseas as one of America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analysts. He is known as an “over-the-horizon” expert who synthesizes conditions to prepare predictive opinions.

 

Andy’s experience fighting terrorism began during the Cold War in 1965 when he went to Washington as an intern on legislative matters and also became an acolyte of Professor Bernard Fall.

 

Professor Fall believed that Viet-Nam was a “revolutionary” war, a military campaign based on nationalist goals that more properly fit the matrix of political analysis. After Professor Fall was blown up, Andy persevered in studying counterinsurgency (COIN) in Viet-Nam and around the world. Andy founded the Revolutionary War Research Center and in 1974 he began to offer counterterrorism consulting at the World Trade Center in New York, becoming one of the nation’s first counterterror specialists. Andy was in New York on September 11, 2001 and rendered assistance.

 

Andy first went to the Arab world in 1971 and has traveled to every country in that region. Andy was in Iran and Afghanistan during the hostage crisis in 1979-80.

 

He lived in Iraq in 2003.

 

His analysis of the terrorist threat in Iran during 1979-80, and again in Iraq in 2003, were leading-edge predictions of what Americans faced in the future. Andy has lived in or been in Israel, Jordan, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Viet-Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.]

 

---

 

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

 

Link #1:

 

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/aug/14/a-self-inflicted-wound-former-ambassador-to-afghan/

 

Link # 2:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-21-dr-francis-collins/story?id=79340684&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

 

Link # 3:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/terror-threat-to-britain-will-grow-if-west-neglects-afghanistan-ex-spymaster-warns-12348573

 

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

 

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With over fifty (50) years of background in radio and television and with decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

 

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

 

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 www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

 

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 100 years ago; today he is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.

 

UPDATES:

 

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

 

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

 

[NOTES: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.

 

Rather than create new blogs for 2022, we are using our old 2020 blogs going forward since nothing has changed.

 

----------

 

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

 

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2021 – All Rights Reserved

Friday, August 28, 2020

New Hampshire U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin has filed a lawsuit against WMUR-TV, the Hearst Family owned TV station in Manchester; the University of New Hampshire and St. Anselm College, a Roman Catholic institution. The lawsuit alleges an extensive pattern of fraudulent behavior by the defendants who publish fraudulent polls and seek to rig primary elections in the state

 

 

New Hampshire U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin has filed a lawsuit against WMUR-TV, the Hearst Family owned TV station in New Hampshire, the University of New Hampshire and St. Anselm College for conducting fraudulent polls and rigged debates. Andy predicts the latest political corruption by these organizations portends the end of the state’s “First In The Nation” (“FITN”) primary.

 

News from:

ANDY MARTIN /2020         

Republican for U. S. Senator

New Hampshire

 

www.AndyMartin2020.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

Headquarters:

E-mail: AndyforUSSenator@aol.com

P.O. Box 742

Manchester, NH 03105-0742

Cellphone: (347) 960-9593

Fax (866) 214-3210

Blogs:

www.AndyMartin2020.blogspot.com

www.AndyMartin2020.wordpress.com

 

---

 

For immediate release:

 

August 28, 2020

 

Dear Granite Stater:

 

Today I filed suit in the Superior Court against the University of New Hampshire (“UNH”) and St. Anselm College for conducting fraudulent polls and seeking to deceive the People of New Hampshire. WMUR-TV, owned by the Hearst Family and controlled by liberals from New York, is the instigator and organizer of this criminal behavior by our local institutions.

 

Both UNH and St. Anselm were given an advance opportunity to avoid a lawsuit, and chose to stonewall the citizens of our state and be sued for fraud. That tells you they have something to hide; they know they are acting illegally. In the law, we  draw an “adverse inference” when people prefer to be sued rather than come clean about their misconduct and avoid court.

 

St. Anselm, in particular, as a Catholic college, is presumably held to higher standards of conduct. The state’s toxic political culture has corrupted a religious institution.

 

UNH has increasingly become a disgrace as a state university. UNH hosts a Chinese Communist Party “Confucius Institute.”  The school has now adopted Chinese communist policies and media standards. Our tax dollars are being dumped in an educational sewer in Dover. That situation cannot long continue.

 

What I have endured is detailed, fact by fact, in the dry, legal language of the lawsuit. But the real victims are New Hampshire voters. They are being fed rigged “polls” designed by leftist agitators at UNH and St. Anselm’s. Instead of robust debates with actual opponents and qualified candidates, WMUR is promoting “fights” that are fixed in advance with pre-programmed losers designed to reelect the incumbent senator. Democracy is being raped, right out in public.

 

Other candidates, in the Second Congressional District, are receiving the same abuse as I am. Two years ago, WMUR hosted eleven (11!) Democrats in a debate. Now they are trying to limit Republicans to two (2!) candidates. Who controls the policies of that station? Democrats.

 

In closing, the behavior of these individuals and institutions tarnishes the image of New Hampshire. A state and its media leaders that conduct themselves with such contempt for its citizens and Constitution cannot be trusted any longer with its “First In The Nation” primary status. The latest misbehavior by Steve Schwartz and his media manipulators at the Hearst Corporation in New York, who corrupt New Hampshire’s Constitution and elections through rigged polls and fixed debates, sounds the death knell for FITN status.

 

Institutions survive and deserve public support because they pay homage to the highest ideals of their citizens. The same institutions fail when they allow themselves to be corrupted and show contempt for the people they serve. Democracy dies through repeated violations of election decency.

 

I continue to fight for the People of New Hampshire in court and at the ballot box. I can’t promise you that we will win, but I do promise that the nation will take notice and send the crooks who are corrupting our state elections a strong message: No More FITN. They will pay a high price for their perfidiousness.

 

I hope you agree.

 

 

Andy Martin

 

P. S. Emailed versions of this letter will have attached a copy of the lawsuit and court receipt.

---

 

Please feel free to forward and/or post this email

 

---

 

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

 

 

ANDY MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:

 

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With over fifty (50) years of background in radio and television and with decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

 

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over fifty years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.

 

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 www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

 

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire over 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.

 

UPDATES:

 

www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA

www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin

 

Andy’s opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

 

[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]

 

----------

 

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

 

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2020 – All Rights Reserved

---

Case Number: 219-2020-CV-00252

 

 

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

 

STRAFFORD, SS               

 

SUPERIOR COURT

 

 

Andy Martin

 

v.

Steve Schwartz,

William R. Hearst, III,

Hearst Television, Inc.,

Adam Sexton,

John DiStaso,

University of New Hampshire,

James W. Dean, Jr.

Andrew E. Smith,

Joseph A. Favazza,

Mark Cooper, OSB,

St. Anselm College,

Neil Levesque.

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

MONEY DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF

 

COUNT ONE

[New Hampshire Right to Know Law]

Names and addresses of the Parties

1. Name and address of Petitioner/Plaintiff

             

For service of pleadings:

Andy Martin

National Litigation Center

             

2. Names and addresses of Respondents/Defendants (boldface)

              

The University of New Hampshire

James W. Dean,

Mr. Andrew Smith

Agent for service of process:

Ronald F. Rogers, Esq.

General Counsel

25 Concord Road

Lee, NH 03861

             

Steve Schwartz,

William R. Hearst, III,

Hearst Television, Inc.,

Adam Sexton,

John DiStaso,

300 W. 57th St.

New York, NY 10019

 

Joseph A. Favazza,

Mark Cooper, OSB,

St. Anselm College,

Neil Levesque

100 St. Anselm Drive

Manchester, NH 03102

 

I.

Limitations

Each Count is related to a different set of defendants as set forth herein. All of the defendants are, however, related to the ongoing civil conspiracy being conducted by all defendants.

Count One is directed at the University of New Hampshire-related defendants.

II.

Jurisdiction and venue

1. The Court has general common law jurisdiction to hear all of the claims presented in this civil action under the New Hampshire Constitution and Statutes.   

2. Venue is proper in Strafford County due to the presence of the University of New Hampshire-related defendants’ and the statewide impact of the defendants’ civil conspiracy.

3. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

III.

Factual allegations

Note: Although New Hampshire is a “notice pleading jurisdiction,” Porter v. Manchester, 151 N.H. 30, 43, 849 A.2d 103 (N.H. 2004), Plaintiff provides considerable factual detail because he is seeking emergency injunctive relief.

1. The Plaintiff

A. Plaintiff is a legally qualified candidate for U.S. Senator from New Hampshire for the 2020 Republican Party primary election. Plaintiff has decades of extensive public and political experience (www.AndyMartin.com, www.AndyMartin2020.com). As required by federal law, Plaintiff has registered with the Federal Election Commission.      

B. Plaintiff has been featured on a segment on the CBS Television Network. He appeared in what many political observers considered the most controversial cable TV program of the 2008 presidential election, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjQhnDEGSk.

Plaintiff has repeatedly “debated” in the nation’s third largest television market on the ABC affiliate, WLS-TV.

At the peak of the 2008 presidential election, Plaintiff was featured on the front page of the New York Times as one of the world’s most important stories in the world during that period, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/nyregion/02rooms.html.

C. Plaintiff’s seriousness as a political actor and his national experience and presence cannot seriously be questioned. The defendants’ relentless efforts to denigrate and literally erase Plaintiff’s political status are an embarrassment to the citizens of New Hampshire, who are stuck squarely within the parameters of being manipulated and controlled by what President Trump calls “fake news” media of the Hearst Family.

D. Plaintiff learned of a “debate” being conducted by some of the defendants in September, 2020. Defendants have acted, combined and conspired to exclude Plaintiff from that debate.

2. The defendants

A.  Hearst-related defendants

Defendants Schwartz, Hearst, Hearst Television, Inc., Adam Sexton and John DiStaso are related to the Hearst Corporation, which effectively owns, manages and controls the only TV station in New Hampshire, WMUR-TV, a local monopoly.

B. University of New Hampshire defendants

Defendants University of New Hampshire, Dean and Smith are associated with a taxpayer-funded, public state university.

C. St. Anselm-related defendants

Defendants Favazza, Cooper, St. Anselm and Levesque are related to St. Anselm College. It is not clear whether Favazza or Cooper is the final decision-making authority to preclude college fraud and manipulation. St. Anselm College is a Benedictine facility and thus, presumably, answerable to higher standards of Catholic morality.

3. Right-to-Know Law related facts

A. New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law (“RTK”) is so critical to the state that the legal principles embodied by RTK are embodied in the state’s Constitution, Bill of Rights Art. 8.

B. Plaintiff submitted an RTK request to defendant Smith three (3) weeks ago. Smith denied that he had done any polling on Plaintiff’s primary opponents. In point of fact, Smith had conducted three (3) polls surveying public opinion on two of Plaintiff’s primary opponents.

C. Plaintiff contacted defendant Dean and pointed out Smith’s latest fraud. Plaintiff received an email indicating the matter was being reviewed. As of August 27th, no RTK compliance has been received, to cover-up the fact that Plaintiff’s name was excluded from Smith’s poll in order to erase his candidacy from the public consciousness.

D. New Hampshire law mandates that this lawsuit be expedited, N.H. Stat. 91-A:7.

4. “Right to Run”-law related facts

A. New Hampshire’s Constitution contains an explicit, fundamental right to run for office, Bill of Rights, Art. 11.

B. The actions of the defendants have disrupted and delayed Plaintiff’s constitutional right, and were intended to do so, in order to erase and “cancel” Plaintiff as a candidate for voter consideration.

C. Both the independent and concerted action of the defendants violates Plaintiff’s constitutional right under the New Hampshire Constitution.

5. Fake polling by UNH and St. Anselm

A. UNH is operated as an extension of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. What the NHDP wants, it gets.

B. In 2018, Smith was polling on eleven (11) Democrats but only two Republicans, in order to exclude Plaintiff’s name.

C. In 2020, Smith has only polled on two Republicans, to again exclude Plaintiff’s name from voter consideration.

D. This Court can and must draw an adverse inference from UNH’s constant erasure of Plaintiff’s name from UNH polls, and UNH’s refusal to produce a single sheet of paper in response to Plaintiff’s RTK requests.

E. In 2020, St. Anselm conducted at least two (2) “polls” concerning Plaintiff’s election. The original poll, sometime in January (?) was used as a pretext to exclude Plaintiff from a St. Anselm event in March.

F. St. Anselm conducted a “poll” in August 2020 and again apparently excluded Plaintiff’s name as an option, again with the intent to defraud the public and damage Plaintiff’s candidacy.

G. When the public hears the term “poll,” it assumes that such polls are conducted in a neutral and detached manner, and not intended to be directed at harming one of the actual candidates in the election. Both UNH and St. Anselm have actively schemed to defraud the public, at various times in conjunction with WMUR and the Union Leader newspaper.

6. Fake News reporting by WMUR

A. WMUR has repeatedly reported that there were “two Republicans” running for the U. S. Senate, thereby intentionally spreading the false fact that Plaintiff is neither a Republican nor a candidate. WMUR is actively supporting two of Plaintiff’s opponent with access to the station’s web site, and apparently scheming to conduct a two-candidate “debate.” See, as an example, the daily diet of the latest fake news: https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-primary-source-bolduc-says-he-doesnt-trust-senate-gop-primary-rival-messner/33812724, by a self-styled “most experienced political writer in the state.”

B. WMUR is actively and intentionally acting to violate FCC requirements that station-sponsored debates only be conducted based on neutral criteria. By definition, if a candidate’s name is excluded from the poll, that poll cannot a valid poll as concerns the excluded candidate. WMUR repeated and notoriously engages in illegal activity to inure and harass Plaintiff’s candidacy.

IV.

 

Legal Claim

1. The actions of Smith, Dean and UNH have egregiously and intentionally violated New Hampshire’s Right to Know Act.

2. The refusal by the UNH defendants to comply was an effort to harass, burden and disrupt Plaintiff’s candidacy, and to cover-up that taxpayer money was being used to subsidize polls from the incumbent Democrat and Plaintiff’s primary opponents.

V.

Demand for judgment

Plaintiff prays that the Court award the following

relief:

1. Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an emergency order directing UNH to comply with his RTK requests and suspending the primary election until after UNH complies.

2. Plaintiff asks that the court issue a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction barring WMUR from conducting a “debate” until it has furnished to this Court evidence of compliance with federal law.

3. Plaintiff asks that the Court enjoin UNH and St. Anselm from conducting “polls” from which Plaintiff’s name is excluded.

4. Plaintiff asks for money damages as the defendants and the evidence may require, as well as any additional declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to do complete justice between the parties.

5. Plaintiff asks this Court to reserve jurisdiction to award additional relief if the defendants should violate the Court’s rulings and/or persist with their defamatory course of conduct.

6. Plaintiff asks this Court for such other relief as may be necessary and proper to do complete justice to Plaintiff, including additional substantial money damages for the Defendants’ unlawful activity if this matter does not come to trial before the scheduled debate in September, 2020.

COUNT TWO

[Violation of New Hampshire Constitutional Right to Run for Office – Bill of Rights Art. 11)]

 

I.

 

Limitations

This Count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.

Legal Claim

1. The New Hampshire Constitution creates an individual “right to run” for office and that right is a “fundamental” right, Akins v. State,  154 N.H. 67, 904 A.2d 702 (N.H.  2006).

2. The defendants’ individual and concerted activity to disrupt and delay Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional right to run under the New Hampshire Constitution violates the Constitution and continues to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right.

V.

Demand for Judgment

Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.  

Count Three

[Civil Conspiracy under New Hampshire Common Law]

[Applicable to All Defendants]

I.

Limitations

This Count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.

1. New Hampshire recognizes the law of civil conspiracies, e.g. Appeal of Armaganian, see e.g. 147 N.H. 158, 784 A.2d 1185 (N.H. 2001). This lawsuit arises in response to a series of civil conspiracies, all motivated by an intent to rig the 2020 primary election and damage Plaintiff’s candidacy.

2. WMUR/Union Leader, in conjunction and conspiracy with St. Anselm, are attempting to conduct a sham “debate” showcasing Plaintiff’s opponents and seeking to convey the impression that Plaintiff’s campaign does not exist.

3. Plaintiff’s primary opponents who are being promoted by the defendants include (1) a candidate with a drunk driving arrest and who is under current investigation for felony fraud in Colorado and (2) a candidate with a noticeable cognitive impairment. The efforts to promote rogue’s gallery-style candidates are an effort to direct state, taxpayer-funded sources to the reelection of incumbent Jeanne Shaheen. Plaintiff is being denigrated and erased precisely because he would be a serious opponent for Shaheen.

4. The university and college are doing what UNH has always done and what St. Anselm has started doing, conducting bogus biased “polls” which favor the Democratic Party and seek to erase Plaintiff as a legitimate candidate in the Republican primary.

5. Plaintiff has been and is being damaged by the civil conspiracies organized and orchestrated by the defendants, which is only one in a continuing series of concerted efforts by the defendants.

V.

Demand for judgment

Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

Count Four

[Defamation by implication under New Hampshire law]

[Applicable to All Defendants]

I.

Limitations

This count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.

Legal Claim

1. New Hampshire law recognizes defamation by implication.

2. By deliberately and consciously excluding Plaintiff from their purported “debates,” and pretending Plaintiff does not exist as a candidate, defendants intend to and have defamed Plaintiff by implication, by suggesting he is not a legally-qualified or recognized Republican candidate who should be participating in a party-sponsored or media-sponsored debates.

3. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to their own opinions, on their editorial pages or broadcast comments (or poll commentary). But they are not entitled to their own “facts,” erasing legitimate candidates to deceive the voting public through the use of bogus “polls” and “news” reports which erase Plaintiff as a candidate for office, see e.g. Michaelis v. CBS, 119 F.3d 697, 701-702 (8th Cir. 1997). “Evidence of an intent to avoid the truth…[is] also sufficient to satisfy the more demanding New York Times standard…” Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 693, 109 S.Ct. 2078 (1989) and constitutes “actual malice,” Stokes v. CBS, 25 F.Supp.2d 992, 1004 (D. Minn. 1998). Therefore, Plaintiff’s current claims are soundly grounded in applicable law.

V.

Demand for Judgment

Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

COUNT FIVE

[Violation of Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA ch. 358-A]

[Applicable to All Defendants]

I.

Limitations

This count is directed at all defendants.

II-III.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:

IV.

Legal Claim

1. Numerous defendants are engaged in commercial, profit-making activity. Others, such as UNH and St Anselm, seek to attract paying students to the “Survey Center” and “Institute of Politics” without alerting potential students to the blatant fraud in their operations. Money is at the root of what they do. Politics is big business in New Hampshire. It is also part of a massive nationwide political industry which services candidates and allows individuals to leverage profit-making opportunities from election cycle to election cycle.

2. When viewers/readers see or hear the term “poll” they are conditioned to believe that an independent, scientific survey has been made of all of the candidates in an election. In 2018, UNH “polled” on eleven (11) Democrats but only two (2) Republicans, with the explicit intent to exclude Plaintiff from UNH’s polls. In other words, the defendants’ polls, at UNH and St. Anselm, are falsely represented to be “polls” when they are not polls at all but rather actions curated to eliminate and erase Plaintiff’s candidacy from public awareness.

3. Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff gave St. Anselm an opportunity to avoid being named as a defendant by providing any exculpatory evidence. St. Anselm did not respond. The Court can and should draw an adverse inference from both the UNH and St. Anselm operations because of their refusals to comply with applicable law (UNH) or common sense (St. Anselm).

4. The defendants’ behavior is extremely deceptive and meets the “rascality” test of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act. Public awareness of defendants’ actions, demeaning and seeking to destroy Plaintiff’s candidacy, would cause any reasonable person to believe that the defendants are bald-faced liars and phonies. The defendants’ behavior is therefore unlawful under the rascality test, ACAS v. Hobert,  155 N.H. 381, 923 A.2d 1076, 1094 (N.H. 2007). They are exactly what President Trump calls them, “fake news.”

V.

Demand for judgment

Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.

 

DATED: August 26, 2020

 

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,

Adjunct Professor of Law

Pro Se