Andy Martin explains why Barack Obama’s prior drug abuse still matters
Internet Powerhouse and Conservative blogger Andy Martin, the man who single-handedly created the anti-Obama “Birther” movement, who then distanced himself from part of his creation, and who still controls the Internet’s anti-Obama agenda with Andy’sHawai’iand Chicago-based research into Obama’s past, explains why Obama’s prior drug abuse is still relevant in the 2012 election cycle.
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin, J.D.
Adjunct Professor of Law (ret.)
America’s most respected independent
investigator and commentator
“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”
To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to AndyMart20@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says Barack Obama’s history of drug abuse is “defining deviancy down” in the White House
Andy says the national media have a double standard, allowing drug abuse by Democrats and looking to expose Republicans for similar behavior
Andy asks why Obama’s “Choom Gang” story is being marginalized; the “Choom Gang” report deserves greater public attention, not cursory reporting on a holiday weekend
Andy says liberal media “dumped” Obama’s drug abuse story on the American people on a weekend when no one is really watching
Andy suggests the Washington Post has confirmed that “high school matters”
(NEW YORK)(May 29, 2012) Internet Powerhouse and Conservative blogger Andy Martin, the man who single-handedly created the anti-Obama “Birther” movement, who then distanced himself from the more extreme elements of his creation, and who still controls the Internet’s anti-Obama agenda with Andy’sHawai’i and Chicago-based research into Obama’s past, explains why Andy believes President Barack Obama’s drug abuse is relevant today:
When did the story of Barack Obama’s drug addiction reach the media? On Memorial Day weekend when most of us are focused on remembering our fallen heroes and celebrating with our families. Obama’s “Choom Gang” document dump was timed to reach Americans when they are least focused on politics and the media. Well, I do not believe we should overlook Obama’s history of drug abuse. We should not allow the media to manipulate us into reelecting a man with a history of drug abuse in his teen and college years. The American people have a right to ask Barack Obama the tough questions that were not asked in 2008.
Does “high school matter?” The Washington Post suggests that high school is very important. The Post created a front page media feeding frenzy over an incident involving Governor Mitt Romney’s high school years. Certainly the Post believes long-ago experiences in high school can still be front-page news when a Republican runs for president.
So where does that leave us with Barack Obama’s high school drug abuse and college drug abuse? Media silence. Consider:
First, since Obama was no doubt abusing drugs into his 20’s, Obama’s drug abuse is a lot closer to the present time than Mitt Romney’s high school hijinks. Obama was a drug user well into adulthood.
Second, while I disagree with Governor Sarah Palin on many issues, I completely agree with her that Obama was never properly vetted by the media in 2008. So while “Obama” is running for “reelection” in 2012, he is still an unknown to most Americans. I wrote a book about “Obama: the Man Behind The Mask,” and laid the foundation for future Obama writing and research. But my book was not read by tens of millions of Americans. Obama is still “the man behind the [media] mask” in 2012.
Third, the way Obama has been treated by the media is a classic example of “defining deviancy down.” The late Senator Daniel Moynihan coined the term “defining deviancy down” (link below) to explain how society can undermine its own standards and security when it tolerates seemingly innocuous anti-social behavior. Moynihan showed how tolerating minor acts of “deviant” behavior can lead to major social problems as tolerance for deviant behavior increases and spreads to more serious societal matters.
Fourth, other columnists have commented on the fact that this is the first time in a long time we have two presidential candidates with no military experience. In other words, we are electing a “commander-in-chief” who has never commanded and never been a chief in any military unit. While battlefield experience should never be a sine qua non for presidential leadership, some exposure to the concept of military policy is always helpful when the person we choose must “lead” our fighting forces and make military policy.
Since we can no longer look at their military leadership as exemplars of their character, looking at other factors becomes essential when we evaluate the leadership qualities of presidential candidates.
Fifth, we learned during theClintonyears, when President Bill Clinton had an insatiable sexual appetite and an inability to control his impulses right into the Oval Office, that a generation of children (now young graduates in their 20’s) were exposed to the complexities of adult sexuality while still in grade school.Clintondefined deviancy down in a way that reached into every home.Clintonalso came up with the notorious expression “I didn’t inhale” to explain away his own marijuana experimentation.
Sixth, while drug experimentation and marijuana use are widespread, the vast majority of the American public has never engaged in the type of serious drug abuse Obama admitted to in his teens (and likely well into his 20’s). Obama says he was virtually addicted to marijuana and bought all of the cocaine he could afford. How many Americans today fit Obama’s drug abuse profile? Not many.
So when you tie all of these threads together, what do they mean?
We are “defining deviancy down” in the White House when we elect or reelect a person who has history of drug abuse. The issue is as simple as that.
Ask any school administrator, local police force or our national anti-drug leaders, “Is drug abuse a problem?” The answer is “yes.” So why would we elect someone to the presidency whose very presence in the White House undermines the anti-drug message?
Recently inSouth Carolina(see links below) both a Republican and a Democrat were knocked out of a congressional race by sex scandals. InSouth Carolina, at least, people know where the line is drawn. Sex scandals and public hypocrisy are unacceptable.
But there does not appear to be a similar “bright line” for the presidency. Yet. Maybe I can help draw one.
Let me put the question to you another way. Do we want to have standards for moral conduct and personal behavior for those we consider electing to the presidency? Or does “anything go?” Are we willing to overlook and forgive and forego any examination of serious drug abuse in the candidates we consider for the presidency just because the abuse took place in a candidate’s high school years or early 20’s? The Washington Post has already told us “high school counts” when evaluating conservative candidates. How about liberals? Do their high school and college experiences also matter in considering their qualifications?
My purpose in writing these remarks is not to preach. It is to raise the question of whether because of Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades and Barack Obama’s drug abuse we have begun a slow but seriously destructive public policy of overlooking a candidate’s personal behavior.
How can a president or first lady proclaim a national policy of “fighting drug abuse” when we elect a man to serve as president who has a history of drug abuse? Is our policy “forgive and forget?” Or should there be consequences for earlier drug abuse?
During the 2000 presidential campaign I was criticized by Republicans for raising the question of then-Governor George W. Bush’s drug abuse and alcoholism. Like Obama, Bush was a drug and alcohol abuser well into his 20’s. Jeb Bush, the governor’s brother, attacked me and corrupted his gubernatorial power to harass me. Ari Fleischer, now a CNN “contributor,” also attacked me. But drug abuse was as relevant to Bush as it is to Obama. In speaking to what should be a “national” policy I do not recognize a double standard for Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. I have questioned whether candidates of both parties should be held to account. I am consistent. The liberal media have not been.
The American people need to demand, as I have been demanding since 2004 (see links below), that Barack (Obama stop lying to us and “come clean.” The American people have a right to demand that the media either “do their job” or step aside so that new media and independent media can examine Obama’s drug abuse and provide facts for an intelligent discussion on Obama’s fitness to serve as president.
As I said in 2008, and repeat today in 2012, Barack Obama is still very much “The Man Behind the Mask.” By refusing to examine Obama’s personal past the American people have been “defining deviancy down” without even realizing that is what we are doing.
I warned about Obama in 2008; many did not want to listen. I’m issuing warnings about him in 2012. We’ll see if voters listen this time. Obama has hinted to us what “reelection” means to him; freedom for him to destroy our institutions and to impose his radical socialist agenda by presidential diktat. He has also comforted his Russian buddies with the knowledge that it’s “reelection time.”
Obama himself has warned us big time what he plans to do if he is reelected; it’s no longer “high school.” In this election cycle Obama is “for real.”
I’m scared about Obama. Are you? Let’s have an intelligent discussion, deal with Obama’s facts, and ask voters to do likewise.
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329
ujntsman wasd reelected in November, 2008. A few monrths later he resigned to serve
his president,” Barack Obama. SDo whyh was it so terrible that Palin resigned and Hutsman served evenless of his secondterm? Can I say “double standard” again.
What os this show us? Whetyher thessue s resigfnaitonsor religion,th emedia shamlessly create double standards tgo favr theiiberal medioa pets (fulldisclosure; I am ot aliberalmedia pet).
You can help support our independent Internet journalism by going to:
and making a contribution by mail or on line.
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):
WHAT OTHERS SAY:
“Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…”
“The only American journalists that are “standing UP” [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”
Andy is a legendary New Yorkand Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Chicago Public Radio calls Andy a “boisterous Internet activist.” The Chicago Tribune calls him “Chicago’s own…political activist.” He has forty-four years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on regional, national and international events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in theUSA and around the world.
Andy has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinoisand American politics and courts for over forty-five years. [www.AndyMartin.com] He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.EnglishforAmerica.org
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).
Andy’s columns are also posted at
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2012 – All Rights Reserved