Some People Say...

Reblogged from Sinclair Watch:

The second installment of Larry Sinclair’s interview with the New Hampshire Herald seems to be running a bit late, so in lieu of that much anticipated second installment, I’ve decided to bring over some extraordinary comments from The Regulator:

Meesheemey says:

December 28, 2011 at 10:29 pm

I found FatAss, I guess this article struck a nerve… of course dufus didn’t find this article until today….

Read more… 1,857 more words

This seems to be a popular post in the last couple of months. Therefore, I've decided to re-post it.

Sinclair Attempts To Trump Newsweek’s “First Gay President” Meme

Boring!

To no one’s surprise, Larry Sinclair watchers knew, when they first saw the Newsweek cover all over cable news, that Larry Sinclair would write an “I told you so” rant about his consistent lies about having a one night stand with then State Senator Barack Obama.

True to form,  and without one scintilla of proof, Sinclair writes:

Newsweek Misses “First Gay President” Call By 3 Yrs

Allow me to make this point perfectly clear, especially due to the recent efforts by some ‘journalist’ to attempt to attack and/or misrepresent me or what I have said about Barack Obama in the past. Barack Obama did not and has not had to evolve into anything as it relates to his position on gays. Barack Obama is gay himself and has engaged in homosexual acts on many different occasions over his life time, including after having married Michelle and even after the birth of his daughter Malia. These are facts which Michelle Obama can not claim to having no knowledge of, nor can Barack Obama deny (at least not if he is being honest) but Obama doesn’t seem to have the same problem he accused his former “spiritual adviser and mentor” Jeremiah Wright of having. Obama asked Wright, “Do you know what your problem is?” Telling Wright  his problem is he  ‘has to tell the truth.’

Still lacking proof, Sinclair continues to push his unsubstantiated story about some sort of “gay” encounter with the then State Senator back in 1999.

This site as well as others have debunked Sinclair’s lies over and over again.

There is nothing left to do but refer people to all of the debunking sites and let them make up their minds.

Taking A Hiatus…

I’ll be back when events warrant the attention of Sinclair Watch.

I anticipate that things will heat up after Labor Day in terms of the forthcoming Presidential Election and Larry Sinclair’s interest in the outcome.

Again, until a newsworthy event occurs regarding Larry Sinclair, this site will be on hiatus.

Ruminations: Andrew Breitbart, Sinclair’s BFF

I was no admirer of Andrew Breitbart.  The release of his manipulated video and commentary about Shirley Sherrod is when I started researching the guy.  Then I found out he and James O’Keefe, worked together on the infamous Pimp video against ACORN as well.

In my mind both were using devious means to “expose” something or someone in an untruthful manner, using trickery and manipulation.

There were times when I saw Andrew Breitbart on television interviews and was actually amazed at the uncanny similarity between he and Larry Sinclair.  Their mannerisms, voice inflections, explaining their way in or out of a situation, and the all-important need to present themselves as a benevolent, average guy.

Some friends made the same comparisons, especially in light of Breitbart’s death. I suppose one could say that their coming together at some point in time during their lifetimes was inevitible, after all…like species seek each other out.

I have no kind words for Mr. Breitbart but I hesitate to say anything too harsh about him as well.  A sentiment that would have served him well, had he simply thought about what he was going to say before he made this statement upon Senator Ted Kennedy’s death some three plus years ago:

Think Progress

Early this morning, news broke that Sen. Ted Kennedy had passed away after serving in the U.S. Senate for nearly 50 years. Soon after, conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart began a sustained assault on Kennedy’s memory, tweeting “Rest in Chappaquiddick.”

Over the course of the next three hours, Breitbart unapologetically attacked Kennedy, calling him a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.” “I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement,” wrote Breitbart in one tweet.

When Politico’s Michael Calderone highlighted Breitbart’s attacks in an article called, “Not all Kennedy critics hold fire,” a pleased Breitbart tweeted:

When a fellow conservative tweeted to Breitbart asking him not to treat Kennedy like they believe some on the left treated the passing of Tony Snow and Ronald Reagan, Breitbart responded “How dare you compare Snow & Reagan to Kennedy! Why do you grant a BULLY special status upon his death? This isnt lib v con.” Despite his claim that his attacks weren’t about “lib v. con,” Breitbart repeatedly justified them in ideological terms.

“Look, this man was granted absolution for nothing. Class, life station played a part but PARTY was everything. GOP couldnt get away with it,” complained Breitbart in one tweet. “IF a GOPpossesses 1/100 of human failings of T. Kennedy he/she is TOAST,” he claimed in another. “In this moment I cant but recognize absolute backwardness of media & society. Bush=EVIL. Ted Kennedy=SAINT. Im gonna keep fighin’, folks,” Breitbart said in another tweet.

In my mind, Breitbart had it wrong.  Death is actually the Great Equalizer.

I noticed that some comments about Breitbart over at LS News were not very flattering but this is how Sinclair handled it:

Deborah Grajek · 11 hours ago
Wow, it’s amazing the slime that the Lord allows to exist! Andrew has four children, a wife and family who I’m sure are dealing with utter heartbreak from their loss. One day my friend you to will face death…..I wonder who will be missing you? I find it hard to imagine who could miss someone who is so unbelievable vile!!

WTF?! FatAss responds this way….

LarrySinclair61 · 9 hours ago
Deborah we allow the comments to post so that we can archive the information and IP when they complain of others lack of respect.

Kind of intimidating, à la Sickliar…same old FatAss

(H/t: Meesh)

To Meesh’s point, it seems where most people think that Sinclair has changed for the better, all one has to do is look at how he handles “dissenters”…the same way he has for four years now…intimidation.

The Make Over Of Larry Sinclair

Larry Sinclair appears to be trying to change his image by lending his name to a “legitimate news site”.  Yet, this reminds me of a snake shedding his skin…in the end, the snake is still a snake.

Sinclair News is the internet news portion of LS News Group which includes an internet radio show and other media.

The point is that the “old” Larry Sinclair who would write about and attack his detractors with impunity seems to have disappeared.  Actually I must emphasize the word “seems”.   It wasn’t long ago that his articles in the New Hampshire Journal online news site, pretty much attacked the “usual suspects” who Sinclair imagines to be his arch enemies solely because we have backed up our reports of his lies about an “affair” with Barack Obama in 1999, with proof from his own contradictions to the story as well as the numerous changes he has made to the original “story”.   Also, his “Donald Young” meme is absent of any concrete proof or corroborating evidence to everything he has written over the years.

One last thing, it also appears that Sinclair is being handled and “prepped” to make him look more legitimate and less “batshit insane” by using his name as a media outlet, thus gaining access to political events this spring and fall in which he might try to get his message out in a more stealthy manner.

Of course this is merely speculation on my part, but after studying Sinclair for four years now, I can tell that he now has handlers and that those handlers are working at “legitimizing” him so that when the height of the general campaign occurs, he can retell his story and hopefully the media will listen.

However, I am almost certain (there’s always some modicum of uncertainty with these politically propped up make-overs) that those news outlets who remember the nutty Sinclair of 2008 – 2011 will not buy into this so called “clean” version of the Larry Sinclair brand.

Update…

There may have been some confusion on this site in recent weeks based upon a restructuring of The Regulator, a website dedicated to all things weird including but not exclusively limited to Larry Sinclair, birther madness and more.

The problem has been solved and the new home of  The Regulator regulars is:  The Regulator Too, where some of the familiar names from The Regulator can be found commenting on various issues.

Thanks for your patience and understanding as we work on redirecting this site to all things Sinclair and other weird anomalies.

 

Some People Say…1-10-2012

I started typing a post about Larry Sinclair’s manifesto, in which he whines and complains that he, and he alone is the victim of a four year plot to discredit his unproven and uncorroborated tale about then State Senator Barack Obama which includes drugs, sex and even murder.

Then I realized, while trying to rebutt what Sinclair was saying with real proof, I found myself getting caught up in the insanity and delusion called Why Larry Matters in 2012?

While trying to decipher and defend his accusations against me and others, my post was getting wordy…similar to Sinclair’s own post.  So I’ve abandoned that project and decided this would be a better format to straighten out the real record:

(Note:)  I’ve added links when possible to give a source to some of the following  observations.  Emphasis is also mine.

Dennis says:

January 10, 2012 at 9:16 am

Part Two of LardButt’s pointless jabbering is up and it is extremely unreadable, incoherent, and largely a floating pile of paranoid rubbish. His story matters because…then he wastes lots of time attacking mitch and nan, kstreet, TJ, the entire Regulator site (BTW, did you know that we are engaged in criminal activities – wow, are we going to start having meetings in semi-darken rooms with some guy called Don?), all lined up by way of random and largely non-existent links and utterly pointless diatribes.

Since most of his crap has to do with events that he claims took place in 2008, he kind of fails at giving the reader any clue why his bullshit matters now. Many of his accusations against other people seem to be based on nothing and gee gosh golly, he again fails to produce any evidence of anything. Obviously, lots of his claims is based upon a wild state of projection because he actually was running around trying to do this sort of crap against other people. BTW, most of his emails from Microsoft sounds like a call center employee trying to politely deal with a nut for a customer. Doesn’t he ever read his own crap?

 RuhRoh says:

January 10, 2012 at 10:00 am

You nailed it, Dennis.

His article has nothing to do with “why his original tale matters” and is simply one more excuse for Larry to whine and complain about perceived slights and then to accuse others of the things that he not only has been doing all along, but continues to do in the current article.

I’d expect Part III to be similar.

kstreet67 says:

January 10, 2012 at 10:27 am

Since most of his crap has to do with events that he claims took place in 2008, he kind of fails at giving the reader any clue why his bullshit matters now. Many of his accusations against other people seem to be based on nothing and gee gosh golly, he again fails to produce any evidence of anything.

That is the longest piece of PSYCHO-BABBLE I have ever seen! It’s a narcissist’s ramblings in an incoherent format!

Ok, he jumps on me but gets it all wrong:

He’s concentrating on the cigarette lighter when I said in my piece that I was nit-picking and went on to discuss the lie about oral sex.

The polygraph exams determined by BOTH operators that the oral sex portion of the exam was deceptive!

Even THAT is irrelevant in the context of his entire rambling piece. Dennis you’re right, it’s nothing but an “utterly pointless diatribe”. You pegged it!

Dennis says:

January 10, 2012 at 11:00 am

Part that sums it all up: “The actual facts are Larry Sinclair has a criminal record from 1980 through 1986….”

OK butt wipe, let explain to your dear readers (all five of them) a couple of points. Prior to 1980, your criminal activities were under the under age rule and cannot be made public. After 1986, you were spending lots of time in prison. Once out, you were back into criminal activities, hence the outstanding arrest warrant in Colorado. You were arrested in Washington on a warrant from Delaware and only beat the rap because you made amends to the victim who then dropped the charges. By any form of normal classification,you are a life long professional criminal. You have never had any kind of real job and the only time you were not involved in criminal (or at the very least, suspect) activities has been when you were serving time for various convictions involving criminal activities.

Gee, for a guy with a “lwa” degree, you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding basic legal points.

kstreet67 says:

January 10, 2012 at 11:23 am

Now THIS is laughable:

…not a single media organization nor anyone else has been able to poke a single hole in Sinclair’s story.

and then this (which must have really bothered him when I wrote it:)

Someone ought to tell the editor of this “newspaper” that he is just about four years late with his inquiry. It seems he doesn’t know that the mainstream media has vetted Sinclair’s story from beginning to end and found absolutely no evidence to corroborate his story.

Then his response to my statement:

Not only has the “mainstream” media not vetted Sinclair’s story, the claims they originally put out in 2008 have come back to bite them. Reporters Admit Not Looking Into Obama Allegations In Fight Over Palin Piece. As noted above David Weigel had a passion for linking to other stories he felt reinforced his position on Sinclair. One of the links Weigel used was from Greta Van Susteren

Did he not say that The Chicago Tribune The New York Times and The New York Post all sent people out to Minnesota to talk with him? Uh, Duh, that’s called “vetting”, i.e., evaluation and examination of the alleged “facts”.

Some Lwa degree you got SFB!

TJTaygee says:

January 10, 2012 at 11:43 am

YAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

that’s it? no proof of his allegations against obama – again?

Just an insane rambling which he’ll copy & paste into his next book?

Wheee – i got a mention. just another of his completely made-up and unsupported implications.

someone remind me to be skeered.

What. A. Dud.

Dennis says:

January 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm

BTW, among the many “suspect” activities he has currently been engaged in, let’s not forget his bogus run for Congress. Let’s see, he claimed he had a filing date as an independent candidate coming up when in fact it was long past; could only accept donations for $299 or less because otherwise he would have to file a report with the FEC and we wouldn’t want him bothered with the paperwork (I can’t believe the kind of dumb fucks who fall for this shit); only campaign stop he made was a Eat and Greet and he was there for the free food; never bothered to prove that he was even allowed to vote in the state of Florida (when asked in a radio interview, the Blob went on a long rant about all the states he could vote in and never bothered to get back to the question regarding Florida. As an ex-convict who has served time in Florida, he would have to file a request with the court to get his voting rights restored. Simple legal process and if he had done it, he could simply show the goddamn paperwork.

So it is a reasonable assumption that his “run for congress” was a “gag” for donations from a bunch of nitwits who act as if they were born and bred to be fleeced by a low life piece of scum.

RuhRoh says:

January 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Dennis,

Let’s also not overlook that Larry has repeatedly bragged in interviews that at the time of his alleged “enounters” with Obama, he was heavily into transporting drugs and illegal aliens.

[Editor's Notes]: I’ll look for the  interview transcripts and post here as soon as I can.

YankeeClipper says:

January 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm

RuhRoh says:
January 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Dennis,

Let’s also not overlook that Larry has repeatedly bragged in interviews that at the time of his alleged “enounters” with Obama, he was heavily into transporting drugs and illegal aliens.

Earning hundreds of thousands of tax free dollars in the process.

Glix says:

January 10, 2012 at 2:22 pm

The actual facts are Larry Sinclair has a criminal record from 1980 through 1986….”

He went to prison in 1986 until the late 1990’s and completely ignores the fact that he got in lots of trouble while he was in there. His list of infractions is a yard long and includes actions that would be a crime on the outside.

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” ― Mark Twain

The following is an excerpt from an article for The Today Show online called Why people lie — and how to tell if they are by Gail Saltz.  It’s simply a heads-up before reading the piece that I wrote below.

A much more troubling group is those who lie a lot — and knowingly — for personal gain. These people may have a diagnosis called antisocial personality disorder, also known as being a sociopath, and often get into scrapes with the law. Lying often gets worse with the passage of time. When you get away with a lie it often impels you to continue your deceptions. Also, liars often find themselves perpetrating more untruths to cover themselves.

<><><><>

I’m still waiting for the New Hampshire Herald’s second installment of Larry Sinclair’s interview.  You see, I am certain that in 2012 there will most certainly be some sort of add-on or left out part of the story.  So I held my breath, read the entire first installment and I must say, there were some minor changes to his story but the following,  particularly caught my attention.

Larry speaks to the New Hampshire Herald…

Larry: The oral sex started, and then stopped for a minute, long enough for me to actually retrieve a
lighter from the cup holder behind me for him to light the pipe.  And then I returned performing the oral
sex on him after he had started kidding the crack pipe saying it actually made him harder during sex. I
didn’t believe that.  But you know some people have different fantasies.  I would say the oral sex from
beginning to end probably was 10-15 minutes at the most.

Now everyone knew that Barack Obama was a smoker at the time and more than likely carried his own lighter with him.  And surely a “crack-head” would have also kept a lighter with him at all times.  But that’s just nit-picking.  Here is the real discrepancy. Sinclair was administered a polygraph test by two different polygraph experts.

For obvious reasons, Sinclair and his minions have successfully overshadowed the results of the polygraph tests by not mentioning them at all.  They repeat the “story” over and over again and of course, true to Goebbels’ word, more and more people started believing the story.

According to Gelb and Borland, Sinclair failed the polygraph tests.  Gelb said his polygraphs indicated deception on the issue of oral sex.  Borland qualified by saying that no test is “perfectly conducted” but that as far as he could see, he was in agreement with Gelb

Gelb’s Report on oral sex question (1^st series):

“The issue under consideration dealt with Sinclair’s representation that he had performed oral sex on Barack Obama in 1999. During an extensive pre-test interview, Sinclair emphatically asserted the sex act took place in a limousine rented by him in the Chicago area…Two target questions: Did you perform oral sex on Obama in 1999? Are you lying when you say you performed oral sex on Obama in 1999? The…polygrams were hand-scored as required by the Government in a PCA examination. To render a conclusion of deception there must be a… -3 in any spot or…a grand total of -4 for both spots.   Sinclair’s polygrams resulted in an evaluation of “deception indication” with a score of -15 (for the oral sex questions).”

Barland’s final analysis:

Barland: QC review of Larry Sinclair polygraph

Although no examination is perfectly conducted I believe that the irregularities in
this examination would be more likely to create an inconclusive result than.”an erroneous
one”.

However, these charts are not inconclusive. Based-upon my review of this
examination, I concur in Mr. Gelb’s finding that Mr. Sinclair was  n0t telling the complete
truth in his claims to have engaged in oral sex with Senator Obama and that Senator Obama used cocaine in his presence .

However, in the interest of fairness, in addition to the epic fail of the polygraph tests, Sinclair has been morphing his story about the reason he contacted the Obama camp in the first place.

Original story line:

01/23/08: Rense Interview

‘I first decided to approach Obama’s camp in September…I had sent the Obama campaign several emails to their campaign website addressing the issue…I was ignored’.

02/08/08: The Right Perspective Interview with Larry Sinclair -

‘Actually, it’s funny. Everybody keeps saying, “now”. I’ve been trying to get this out since last fall and, umm, You Tube was pretty much a last resort…I mean, it should’ve come out back last fall when I first reported it, umm, to NBC [corrects self] MSNBC…I didn’t really want to come out on You Tube like that because I didn’t think it was the right way to do it. And I tried every possible way, ah, to come out with it.…I was actually, you know, inspired by Barack Obama as well until I saw a young person last fall, and saw Obama make a statement to this person that you know, hey, “I’ve admitted to what I’ve done in the past, but I didn’t…I haven’t done it since my teens”.’

Compare and Contrast:

12/11:  New Hampshire Herald

Herald: Between 1999 and 2004 it was five years. You met Obama only very briefly. So five years after
you could still recognize his face?
Larry: Let me explain something to you. My grandmother is 96 years old. She will tell you when I visit her
I can tell her things that happened in her house when I was a kid, when my grandfather was still alive all
the way down to the type of clothes that either one of us was wearing at the time. My memory is excellent.

Herald: So you are sitting there in Mexico and Obama is addressing the convention?
Larry: I see him at the convention on TV. And again, I am in Mexico. It doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t
care. I’m just looking at another politician, winding his mouth, and I’m thinking ok, he’s definitely in the
right line of business! And again, it didn’t make any difference to me. I’m not from Chicago. I’m not 
represented by the guy. It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me was in 2007, I happened to be watching 
TV. I saw some female young people talking about how excited they were about Barack Obama. Saying 
that he was this new kind of politician who was very transparent. That everybody knew everything about 
him. And I’m like you don’t know everything about him. And they kept talking about the fact that he has
been so open and honest about his drug use and I’m like no, he hasn’t. Because his official stand was
that he hasn’t used drugs since high school. Then a couple of months later, it changed to well, when I
was in college I used this and now every now and then a little coke when we could afford it. Then the
campaign changed again to yeah, he hasn’t used drugs since high school. So when I saw that, it just
kind of appealed to me the wrong way. And that’s when I contacted his campaign and told them he
needs to come clean about the extent of his drug use.

Some People Say…

The second installment of Larry Sinclair’s interview with the New Hampshire Herald seems to be running a bit late, so in lieu of that much anticipated second installment, I’ve decided to bring over some extraordinary comments from The Regulator:

Larry grants an interview to “The New Hampshire…who???”

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting  different results…

Yankee Clipper of  The Regulator gave a link to The New Hampshire Herald website where an article about Larry Sinclair is displayed.  Above Sinclair’s “interview” is an “editorial” about Sinclair and his claims.  It reads in part:

[...]

This story is very important and timely because a few weeks ago, a number of women made unsubstantiated harassment allegations against Herman Cain. The media ran with the stories even when it was increasingly becoming very evident that the allegations had no legs. The uproar caused some character assassination for Cain and ultimately halted his campaign for president.

[...]

It is important that the Obama campaign comes out and tells the American people what is known or
unknown about the allegations that Larry Sinclair has made against Obama for all intents and
purposes.

We are not by any means attempting to suggest here that what Larry Sinclair has told us is the gospel 
truth. We’re not in a place to make that judgment. As you read the interview and make your own 
research, it is incumbent upon you to arrive at your own conclusions. That’s why we chose a Q&A 
format for the story.

Someone ought to tell the editor of this “newspaper” that he is just about four years late with his inquiry.  It seems he doesn’t know that the mainstream media has vetted Sinclair’s story from beginning to end and found absolutely no evidence to corroborate his story.

After four years of futile attempts to get attention, Larry Sinclair is trying once again to get publicity for his tired, old, debunked story.

It’s another general election year so Sinclair appears to be trying to recapture the moments when many people were listening and DONATING to his cause which was: ‘to get the word out’. However, back then the myth was new and everyone was curious, especially those who would rather have seen Hillary win the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

There were also the haters and bigots who just couldn’t stand to think of  a Black man becoming the possible nominee.

Yet, Larry Sinclair is as persistent as ever to resurrect the Obama/Sinclair/Donald Young ‘story’ again.  In my opinion it will be yet another EPIC FAIL.

Yesterday I read where someone called Sarah Palin an “attention whore”.  That name better suits Larry Sinclair.  Since February 2008, Larry Sinclair has been trying to “sell” his story.  There were no takers then, because:

• There was no limo driver to interview
• He failed the polygraph test
• Sinclair had no paper work to show he was even in Chicago at the time that he stated
• Sinclair allegedly gave some phone records to a NY Times reporter, but that was just to show how many times he called the Obama campaign and the reporter never reported on the case
• The alleged hotel record and Choice Hotel Reward letters were either redacted and/or manipulated and therefore disqualified by most observers as false evidence
• An investigation was commissioned to determine the veracity of the hotel receipt (rewards letter) and it was found to have been tampered with by the recipient of the letter/receipt

The above bullet points were summarized from: Deciphering Sinclair’s Evidence.

The Interview – Part 1:

Herald: Larry, it’s only recently we learned
about your story. It’s very surprising that no
major media has done much about it. I
watched your National Press Club interview
online. Was that in 2008?

Larry: Yes. It was on June 18, 2008.
Herald: Since then, what is new about the
revelations?

Larry: A lot has transpired in the fact that
one of the journalists at the press
conference in 2008 by the name of Wayne
Madsen; he’s been in journalism in
Washington DC for quite some time. And he’
s a former Navy intelligence. He is one of the
journalists that after the press conference
started writing articles similar to those of the
Politico.

But he had contacted me in 2009/2010 and
started telling me he has changed his mind
and started believing everything I had said.

The NH Herald claims that they will have more of this interview in their next issue so stay tuned…