McHenry County Blog

Andy Martin

Back in his student days, Andy Martin-Trigona so irritated the legal establishment in Illinois by probing the corruption in the Illinois Supreme Court that when he got his law degree he wasn’t granted a license.

Since then he has been successful in the radio business, been vilified by a certain segment of the political arena who will probably pop up here in the comment section and been the most cogent opponent to Judy Baar Topinka when she and he ran in the Republican Party primary for Governor. (The WBEZ debate was something to see and hear.)

He has run for other offices in other states, as well as for President this year. More recently he has run as and is known as Andy Martin.

Somehow what McHenry County Republican leaders are doing to prevent Democrat Jack Franks from having an opponent in Tonya Franklin has caught his eye.

His open letter of yesterday to Chairman Mike Tryon follows:

May 28, 2012

Michael Tryon – Chairman
5501 Northwest Highway
Crystal Lake, IL 60014

via email and USPS

Re: Your efforts to block Republican candidates

Dear Mike:

I am writing you about the scandal you are creating by trying to manipulate Illinois election laws to

1. frustrate Republican candidates and to
2. create a local “cabal” with another Democratic Party representative from McHenry County.

Republicans have been stooges for Democrats going back well into the last century.

The “West Side Block” was a group of nominal Republicans who worked in conjunction with Democrats in the Illinois House.

More recently some current state representatives are also identified as stooges of the Democratic Party.

But, historically, the suburbs and suburban leaders have rejected your Chicago-style bipartisan cronyism and corruption.

I have never met Tonya Franklin, who wants to run against Representative Jack Franks for state representative, and the only time I met Sharon Meroni was in court—when I sued her.So I am no front man for either Franklin or Meroni.

Then what is my agenda?

I am a constitutional conservative.

Ever since I went to the Illinois General Assembly as an intern in 1965 I have fought against corruption, cronyism and perversion of our Constitution.

Instead of encouraging Republicans to run, you are trying to run them down.

Mike Tryon

Jack Franks

Is that your idea of what makes for an effective county chairman?

You and Franks could be subject to potential federal criminal and civil liability for conspiring to prevent candidates from running for office, see e.g. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 245 (a), 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Tonya Franklin

I don’t know if Tonya Franklin is a good candidate or a bad candidate.

I don’t know if she can run an effective campaign or not.

Let the voters decide!

She at least is willing to try to defeat your crony, Representative Jack Franks, and that is more than you are willing to do.

You have also tried to sabotage direct election of Illinois State Central Committee members.

Your actions in trying to personally control local appointments to the state central committee, and to deprive McHenry voters of their constitutional right to vote for state committee representation, is apparently part of your ongoing and extensive campaign to dilute and defeat Republicans other than yourself, and to use party office and public office as a personal fiefdom instead of as a public trust.

I ask you to see that Ms. Franklin is appointed the Republican candidate to oppose Representative Franks without any further harassment, corruption or delay.

Your tactics are becoming another embarrassment to the Illinois Republican Party.

The party is the people; the party is not a handful of corrupt insiders led by State Representative Tom Cross and his followers. Cross is selfishly trying to “lock the doors” to new Republicans and trying to prevent Republicans from once again becoming a majority party and taking control of state government, to avoid diluting his own petty personal political power.

Given your record and Cross’s record of defeating democracy and working to deny ordinary Republicans a voice and vote in their own party and state central committee, all of you insiders should either stand up and fight for Republicans, or step down and stop helping the Democrats destroy Illinois government.

Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Otherwise, I assume you will comply with Illinois state law, appoint the statutorily-mandated district committee, and see that Ms. Franklin is named as the party’s candidate for state representative without further delay.

Sincerely yours,

ANDY

I haven’t covered the U.S. Senate race to any great extent. The prohibitive favorite, U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk has been to 1776 for a morning “vetting” by Republican Party insiders. I didn’t get much feedback, but when a candidate is running so high in the polls, Establishment types generally support him or her.

With last week’s widespread dissemination of what had previously been rumor mill fodder, stimulated by a radio ad from Senate candidate Andy Martin, some are wondering who is running against Kirk.

Pat Hughes is one of them. He describes himself as “a successful real estate developer, husband, and father, resides with his wife, Susan, and their three children in Hinsdale.”

Here is his press release in favor of term limits:

HUGHES MAKES STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF TERM LIMITS
U.S. Senate candidate Patrick Hughes
to Speak at “Stop Mark Kirk Express” Event

U.S. Senate candidate Patrick Hughes (R-IL) makes the following statement on his support for term limits and will be making a more formal statement on the issue tonight at the Stop Mark Kirk Express event hosted by the Will County Tea Party Alliance:

“Washington D.C. has quickly become the primary place of residency for some members of Congress. In the past twenty years over 90% of House members who ran for re-election have won and over 80% of Senators who have run for re-election have won.

“It is an astonishing high incumbency rate and an odd occurrence due to the fact that Congress has not seen an approval rating over 50% in almost as many years. Setting term limits for Congress helps set a standard for responsible government and responsible representation of the people. When members of Congress begin to see their office as a career and not a public service, they have lost sight of what serving in Congress is about; representation of the people. Politics should be about the people, not the office.”

“If elected to the U.S. Senate I would not only work towards getting term limits set for Congress, I would also pledge to only serve two terms as a Senator myself. Our country thrives when the voices of the people are heard and represented.”

U.S. Senate candidate Andy Martin used radio ads to surface a rumor that could be damaging in the primary election, maybe even in the general.

Why radio ads?

Because political candidates can say anything they wish in a radio ad. Its content cannot be censored, as newspapers and electronic news media regularly do.

Here’s how the Chicago Sun-Times handled it:

The Chicago Tribune was a bit more explicit in its headline:

The Chicago Sun-Times ran write-up of Chicago’s Inspector General David Hoffman’s candidacy for the Democratic Party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate to replace Roland Burris.

At the bottom, was another article, next to which was a list of “THE FIELD.”

Take a look.

At the bottom are the Republicans.

At the bottom is the name of “blogger Andy Martin.”

Above his name were

• U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk
• Retired Judge Don Lowery
• Matteson resident Eric Wallace
• Hinsdale businessman Pat Hughes

Martin, who used to be known as Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, ran in the GOP primary for governor in 2006 using the simpler version of his name. He got 6,095 votes.

When he ran for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2008, however, he received 240,548 votes. Steve Sauerberg won the race. Sauerberg didn’t spend a lot of money, so I figure Martin has a pretty good ballot name.

The Chicago Tribune trashed Martin on its front page. It wasn’t a real professional article. In any event, the article and lack of respect from and coverage by mainstream media show in the disdain that they have for his running for public office.

My guess is that Martin could afford to spend some money on a campaign, but evidence of his spending much has not been seen.

He is quite good at doing things Pat Quinn got lots of publicity for when he was seeking office.

For example, last week when the Illinois State Republican Central Committee refused to allow him to campaign in the Ag Director’s lawn, where the big doings were at the State Fair’s Republican Day, he went to Sangamon Court and forced his way in.

Martin has a law degree from the University of Illinois, but was denied a license to practice by the Illinois Supreme Court shorting after the Roy Sophisberg-Ray Klingbeil Civic Center Bank scandal. He has said he worked with Chicago Daily News reporter Charles Nicodemus on the story and not being granted a law license was pay back.

But Andy Martin is the name that you will see rarely mentioned in coverage of the U.S. Senate.

He has run for office many times in Illinois, Connecticut, Florida.

Illinois Republican United States Senate candidate Andy Martin has sent out his take on the murder of Pakistan’s leading advocate for democracy. Thought you might be interested in the views of the candidate whose name must never be mentioned.

(CHICAGO)(December 28, 2007) When a friend suggested going to see the new film “Charlie Wilson’s War,” I readily accepted. I had been in Afghanistan with the Mujaheddin, and was familiar with operations at both ends of the country. One of my best friends, an Afghan refugee to the United States, was later killed by the Northern Alliance. But before I could see the movie, tragedy struck in Pakistan yesterday.

My own connections to Pakistan go back to the early days of my life, when I met Pakistani students at a prep school in England. Who were all of these people, and where did they come from? I soon learned. I became very close with my Paki pals. And thus I was familiar with the area when I ended up in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. In Iran I teamed up with my Afghan buddy and we slipped into Afghanistan from the west, starting in Meshad, Iran. For two decades I was probably the last American to enter Afghanistan in that manner. We linked up with the Mujaheddin.

In the meantime, in the east, Pakistan was being overrun by Afghan refugees fleeing into Peshawar, a city that became a living version of a film noir. Every warlord had his refugee group, and their followers marched through the streets claiming they were ready to take on and takeout the Soviet Union. The Red Army was slaughtering the Afghans, trying to break the back of resistance to the Soviet invasion.

Simultaneously, Pakistan was being undermined by its military dictator, Zia al-Huq, who appears in the movie. Zia killed the elected leader of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto’s father, and installed Muslim holy law, or Shariah, to tamp down the free spirits of secular Pakistanis. The last thirty years have been a disaster for Pakistan, and for us.

So who killed Benazir Bhutto? I believe that Pakistani intelligence will try to on the assassination on “Islamic militants.” But this is probably one time when the fundamentalists are not guilty.

The current military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, who styles himself a president, and was once known as “Busharraf” because of the mutual fawning between himself and President Bush after 9/11, is most likely at fault for this murder. Ironically, the dictator’s brother lives in the Chicago area, quietly, where he is a respected doctor.

While neighboring India has firmly planted democratic roots in recent years, Pakistan remains a military dictatorship. India has become a leading nation of the world. Pakistan is a basket case. When British India was divided in 1947, most people would have wagered that it was Pakistan, not India, which would eventually prosper and succeed. Because the British had favored the Punjabis, the dominant group in Pakistan, Pakistan received most of the combined region’s managerial and military class. A solid social structure was in place.

Because Pakistan was Muslim, but only nominally so, a free society could have developed. Sadly, under military dictatorships, Pakistan has become a disaster. The United States has welcomed India into the expanding circle of influential nations while Pakistan has become more and more unstable.

Musharraf has been under relentless pressure to end his military dictatorship. He has come under increasing scrutiny for misdirecting and squandering $10 billion in American military and economic aid. And Senator Barack Obama has even suggested we bomb Pakistan “tribal areas” if we find Osama Bin Laden and the Pakistanis are reluctant to act.

Musharraf grudgingly made a deal with Bhutto, under U. S. pressure, and then reluctantly readmitted her rival for power Nawaz Sharif into Pakistan after initially deporting him. But Musharraf has kept recalcitrant Pakistan Supreme Court Judges and lawyers under house arrest. All in all, Musharraf faces a very untidy and potentially explosive situation.

Why does Pakistan matter? Of today’s Islamic countries, Pakistan still has more potential to become a beacon of Islamic moderation and stability than any other nation. Americans probably passed over the pictures of Pakistani judges and lawyers protesting Musharraf’s recent repression and his bogus “state of emergency.” But there, in public, was proof positive that despite all of the chaos of the past 30 years, Pakistan still had the infrastructure, and superstructure of a civil society in place. Pakistan is still a place where the future holds great promise both for Islam and for freedom.

The demonstrating judges and attorneys were crying out for our help. Once again we choose to back the dictator Musharraf and ignore cries from the Pakistani people. Although Pakistan is vastly more unstable and radicalized than it was in my era 30 years ago, Pakistan is still worth saving and must be saved. The nation has nuclear weapons.

So why do I believe Musharraf killed Bhutto? First, the killing looks suspicious. The way the attack unfolded, with firearms first and explosions second, leads me to believe the detonations were designed to cover up the killing and indeed to create chaos as a cover for escape of the perpetrators. The bomb explosions were incidental to the murder of Bhutto. Assassins planning to use a bomb do not shoot first and bomb second.

Second, I see the security situation around Bhutto as incredibly lax and ineffective. When Bhutto landed in Pakistan several weeks ago, another bombing attack led to massive death. She had virtually no protection moments before yesterday’s attack. Either she was incredibly foolhardy, or she had been poorly advised to unnecessarily expose herself.

One of the failings of military dictatorships is that the military ceases to be the servant of the state, and becomes its oppressor. And having arrogated power to itself, Pakistan’s military is not anxious to see a restoration of civilian control. And so, the easiest way to derail a return to civil society was to kill the emissary of future democracy. Benazir Bhutto.

Sadly, her death will likely create even more unstable conditions. American foreign policy stands on the brink. We have banked on Musharraf, but his bank is bankrupt. His military has swallowed our billions with very little to show, and he lacks any future. He has lost the people. The tribal areas have become a Taliban suburb. His regime is likely to become increasingly despotic, as he tries to blame “Islamic fundamentalists” for Bhutto’s death.

Musharraf probably believed his rule would be cemented in place by the death of Bhutto. I believe he was very wrong. And I think it would be wrong to blame the fundamentalists for Bhutto’s death. Potentially, they stood to gain if Bhutto became a growing threat to Musharraf. I would not rule out a fundamentalist plot, but right now I believe Musharraf is the guilty party.

So where do we go from here? The United States must (i) conduct its own independent investigation into Bhutto’s death. Such an investigation will not be easy, because we will receive no cooperation from Pakistani intelligence services, all of which are still loyal to Musharraf. (ii) We need to inventory the Pakistani nuclear weapons stockpiles as best we can, and be ready to seize them if the government falls. (iii) As distasteful as it will be to the State Department, we need to begin a new opening to Nawaz Sharif, who remains the only civilian leader likely to stem the collapse of this nation.

None of these options is pleasant, and all of them involve more and more risk, but right now we have to double up, or we will surely be doubled down by the unfolding events in Pakistan.

Illinois Republican United States Senate candidate Andy Martin has sent out his take on the murder of Pakistan’s leading advocate for democracy. Thought you might be interested in the views of the candidate whose name must never be mentioned.

(CHICAGO)(December 28, 2007) When a friend suggested going to see the new film “Charlie Wilson’s War,” I readily accepted. I had been in Afghanistan with the Mujaheddin, and was familiar with operations at both ends of the country. One of my best friends, an Afghan refugee to the United States, was later killed by the Northern Alliance. But before I could see the movie, tragedy struck in Pakistan yesterday.

My own connections to Pakistan go back to the early days of my life, when I met Pakistani students at a prep school in England. Who were all of these people, and where did they come from? I soon learned. I became very close with my Paki pals. And thus I was familiar with the area when I ended up in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. In Iran I teamed up with my Afghan buddy and we slipped into Afghanistan from the west, starting in Meshad, Iran. For two decades I was probably the last American to enter Afghanistan in that manner. We linked up with the Mujaheddin.

In the meantime, in the east, Pakistan was being overrun by Afghan refugees fleeing into Peshawar, a city that became a living version of a film noir. Every warlord had his refugee group, and their followers marched through the streets claiming they were ready to take on and takeout the Soviet Union. The Red Army was slaughtering the Afghans, trying to break the back of resistance to the Soviet invasion.

Simultaneously, Pakistan was being undermined by its military dictator, Zia al-Huq, who appears in the movie. Zia killed the elected leader of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto’s father, and installed Muslim holy law, or Shariah, to tamp down the free spirits of secular Pakistanis. The last thirty years have been a disaster for Pakistan, and for us.

So who killed Benazir Bhutto? I believe that Pakistani intelligence will try to on the assassination on “Islamic militants.” But this is probably one time when the fundamentalists are not guilty.

The current military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, who styles himself a president, and was once known as “Busharraf” because of the mutual fawning between himself and President Bush after 9/11, is most likely at fault for this murder. Ironically, the dictator’s brother lives in the Chicago area, quietly, where he is a respected doctor.

While neighboring India has firmly planted democratic roots in recent years, Pakistan remains a military dictatorship. India has become a leading nation of the world. Pakistan is a basket case. When British India was divided in 1947, most people would have wagered that it was Pakistan, not India, which would eventually prosper and succeed. Because the British had favored the Punjabis, the dominant group in Pakistan, Pakistan received most of the combined region’s managerial and military class. A solid social structure was in place.

Because Pakistan was Muslim, but only nominally so, a free society could have developed. Sadly, under military dictatorships, Pakistan has become a disaster. The United States has welcomed India into the expanding circle of influential nations while Pakistan has become more and more unstable.

Musharraf has been under relentless pressure to end his military dictatorship. He has come under increasing scrutiny for misdirecting and squandering $10 billion in American military and economic aid. And Senator Barack Obama has even suggested we bomb Pakistan “tribal areas” if we find Osama Bin Laden and the Pakistanis are reluctant to act.

Musharraf grudgingly made a deal with Bhutto, under U. S. pressure, and then reluctantly readmitted her rival for power Nawaz Sharif into Pakistan after initially deporting him. But Musharraf has kept recalcitrant Pakistan Supreme Court Judges and lawyers under house arrest. All in all, Musharraf faces a very untidy and potentially explosive situation.

Why does Pakistan matter? Of today’s Islamic countries, Pakistan still has more potential to become a beacon of Islamic moderation and stability than any other nation. Americans probably passed over the pictures of Pakistani judges and lawyers protesting Musharraf’s recent repression and his bogus “state of emergency.” But there, in public, was proof positive that despite all of the chaos of the past 30 years, Pakistan still had the infrastructure, and superstructure of a civil society in place. Pakistan is still a place where the future holds great promise both for Islam and for freedom.

The demonstrating judges and attorneys were crying out for our help. Once again we choose to back the dictator Musharraf and ignore cries from the Pakistani people. Although Pakistan is vastly more unstable and radicalized than it was in my era 30 years ago, Pakistan is still worth saving and must be saved. The nation has nuclear weapons.

So why do I believe Musharraf killed Bhutto? First, the killing looks suspicious. The way the attack unfolded, with firearms first and explosions second, leads me to believe the detonations were designed to cover up the killing and indeed to create chaos as a cover for escape of the perpetrators. The bomb explosions were incidental to the murder of Bhutto. Assassins planning to use a bomb do not shoot first and bomb second.

Second, I see the security situation around Bhutto as incredibly lax and ineffective. When Bhutto landed in Pakistan several weeks ago, another bombing attack led to massive death. She had virtually no protection moments before yesterday’s attack. Either she was incredibly foolhardy, or she had been poorly advised to unnecessarily expose herself.

One of the failings of military dictatorships is that the military ceases to be the servant of the state, and becomes its oppressor. And having arrogated power to itself, Pakistan’s military is not anxious to see a restoration of civilian control. And so, the easiest way to derail a return to civil society was to kill the emissary of future democracy. Benazir Bhutto.

Sadly, her death will likely create even more unstable conditions. American foreign policy stands on the brink. We have banked on Musharraf, but his bank is bankrupt. His military has swallowed our billions with very little to show, and he lacks any future. He has lost the people. The tribal areas have become a Taliban suburb. His regime is likely to become increasingly despotic, as he tries to blame “Islamic fundamentalists” for Bhutto’s death.

Musharraf probably believed his rule would be cemented in place by the death of Bhutto. I believe he was very wrong. And I think it would be wrong to blame the fundamentalists for Bhutto’s death. Potentially, they stood to gain if Bhutto became a growing threat to Musharraf. I would not rule out a fundamentalist plot, but right now I believe Musharraf is the guilty party.

So where do we go from here? The United States must (i) conduct its own independent investigation into Bhutto’s death. Such an investigation will not be easy, because we will receive no cooperation from Pakistani intelligence services, all of which are still loyal to Musharraf. (ii) We need to inventory the Pakistani nuclear weapons stockpiles as best we can, and be ready to seize them if the government falls. (iii) As distasteful as it will be to the State Department, we need to begin a new opening to Nawaz Sharif, who remains the only civilian leader likely to stem the collapse of this nation.

None of these options is pleasant, and all of them involve more and more risk, but right now we have to double up, or we will surely be doubled down by the unfolding events in Pakistan.

I was talking with a pro-life leader today about the congressional seat that Denny Hastert seems about ready to announce his retirement from.

(I’ve heard he has tossed his yard signs and that his campaign web site is down.)

We were bemoaning the dynamics of having two pro-life candidates running in a multi-candidate Republican primary.

Naturally, the 2006 gubernatorial campaign came up. We discussed how having two conservatives in the race–Jim Oberweis and State Senator Bill Brady—allowed Judy Baar Topinka to sneak in through the middle, so to speak.

The conservation got around to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s upcoming election and this was the leader’s comment:

There are unwell-known candidates on the hustings. I saw Jim Nalepa at Family PAC’s cruise and Steve Saurerberg at State Senator Chris Lauzen’s Porky Picnic within the last week. I see from the Illinois Republican Party web site that Andy Martin and Mike Pasak are listed, along with Sauerberg.

Oberweis could win instant front-runner status.

That’s a status that I believe he has always sought.

Better yet, he could win the primary election next year, not come in second.

And, Republicans throughout Illinois would welcome his candidacy.

Oberweis has the money to give Dick Durbin a real run for his special interest money.

Where’s a Draft Oberweis committee when we need one?

= = = = =
Jim Oberweis is seen serving ice cream on the 2006 Family PAC Cruise. I was looking forward to a scoop this year, but he did not attend.

I was talking with a pro-life leader today about the congressional seat that Denny Hastert seems about ready to announce his retirement from.

(I’ve heard he has tossed his yard signs and that his campaign web site is down.)

We were bemoaning the dynamics of having two pro-life candidates running in a multi-candidate Republican primary.

Naturally, the 2006 gubernatorial campaign came up. We discussed how having two conservatives in the race–Jim Oberweis and State Senator Bill Brady—allowed Judy Baar Topinka to sneak in through the middle, so to speak.

The conservation got around to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s upcoming election and this was the leader’s comment:

There are unwell-known candidates on the hustings. I saw Jim Nalepa at Family PAC’s cruise and Steve Saurerberg at State Senator Chris Lauzen’s Porky Picnic within the last week. I see from the Illinois Republican Party web site that Andy Martin and Mike Pasak are listed, along with Sauerberg.

Oberweis could win instant front-runner status.

That’s a status that I believe he has always sought.

Better yet, he could win the primary election next year, not come in second.

And, Republicans throughout Illinois would welcome his candidacy.

Oberweis has the money to give Dick Durbin a real run for his special interest money.

Where’s a Draft Oberweis committee when we need one?

= = = = =
Jim Oberweis is seen serving ice cream on the 2006 Family PAC Cruise. I was looking forward to a scoop this year, but he did not attend.