It’s Over Sinclair…YOU Lose November 8, 2012

 

Barack Obama Wins Second Term as President of the United States

Are Americans Schmucks or Smart? Smart, Smart as Hell! Obama Wins 2nd Term

Score 2 for honesty and integrity and 0 for lies and deceit.

Larry Sinclair’s elongated fifteen minutes of fame has ended on a much anticipated note…President Obama has won a second term.

The lies and deception that catapulted Larry Sinclair into an underground internet hero have not served him well, especially not with the much coveted main-stream media. That seemed to be his ultimate goal but it never happened.  They saw him as a “kook” and a con-man and that assessment was held by all major news outlets including Fox News.

Larry’s “star” never shown as brightly as he had hoped.  Instead he was relegated to the dark confines of the internet and internet radio.

This blog will remain online so that those who are interested in the historical (or not so historical) impact and/or fiasco of the Larry Sinclair saga and campaign to prevent Barack Obama’s first electoral win by writing a book filled with lies about the President and his supporters.

A second book that was due out over a month ago (he promised to release it BEFORE the election…) didn’t happen.

There will be no further blog posts from me as my job is done.  Truth matters.  The research compiled by Jay and others will speak for itself from here on out.

President Barack Obama has won a well-deserved, well fought second term and Larry Sinclair is obsolete.

Related articles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tea Party Demands Obama Prove He’s Not A Gay Crack-Head

First of all, I was always under the impression that if one is accused of something, the accuser has the burden of proof, not the accused!

Secondly, this is a last ditch desperate attempt to make Americans take their minds off of Mitt Romney’s tax returns.   The funny thing is this story has no traction…it never did.  Secondly, wacky Tea Party leader Judson Phillips is playing to his base and they already hate Obama.

These people are simply put: Batcrap crazy!

Addicting Info 

On Thursday, Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips posted on his website a conspiracy filled screed demanding that President Obama release his medical records to prove that he is not a crack addict.

This eyebrow raising demand and the disrespectful manner in which it was delivered is in response to the wide spread calls from both sides of the political spectrum for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. That Romney has refused to do so breaks decades of precedent set by his own father, George Romney, released 12 years of his tax returns while running for the GOP nomination in 1968. Yet, this does not concern Phillips who claims:

The Obama campaign and the Party of Treason continue to demand Mitt Romney release his tax records so they can pull them apart and continue to distort facts and lie about Romney.

Strangely, this is not a well known political tactic in presidential campaigns, but Romney’s single released (and only partially) tax return had several questionable aspects to it so it is not surprising Romney is reluctant to release more. On the other hand, Romney’s stonewalling has led many to speculate that there is far more damaging information in the tax returns than he is prepared to deal with. Still, Phillips believes there is a more pressing issue:

A man named Larry Sinclair claims that in 1999 he and Barack Obama had sex and then smoked crack cocaine.  This is 1999, nine years before Obama would run for President.

Crack cocaine is very addictive.   It is very destructive.  Addiction specialist will tell you that a crack addiction is very tough to break.

Is Obama an addict?  Was he an addict in the past?

Phillips leaves out the part about Sinclair having a criminal record rife with con artistry and multiple aliases. I guess this is what passes for a credible source for the Tea Party (which tells us more about the Tea Party then it does about Obama). Phillips goes on to rehash the “Obama college transcript” conspiracy theory and wonder how he could have possibly have gotten into Harvard. I guess becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was a liberal conspiracy as well.

Phillips caps his tinfoil hat rant with a call for Republicans to shut the hell up:

The Romney campaign may have finally learned that they are not going to get anywhere by playing nice.  They have an opponent that wants to go down into the gutter for a fight and believes in winning at all costs.

Romney may have finally learned not to play their game.

Let’s hope so.

Meanwhile, every Republican should quit telling Mitt Romney to release more records, giving Obama more ammunition to lie about him and start demanding that Obama release his records.

This entire post smacks of distasteful desperation and dog whistle racism. Obama might be a crackhead? Well, he is black and you how those people like their crack. Obama used foreign money to get into college? Is he some kind of furr’ner Manchurain candidate? How did he get into such a good college? Did they only let him in because he was… black?! Yet, suggesting that the Tea Party movement, of which the Tea Party Nation is one of, if not the, biggest parts, is drowning in thinly veiled racial resentment Southern Strategy- style politics is met with howls of protest.

The ridiculous lengths the Tea Party goes to attack Obama calls into question just why it is that anyone takes them seriously? Are there any lines they’re not allowed to cross? Are their no standards of decency they can be held to? It’s a great time to be a conservative in America: no personal responsibility, integrity or credibility required.

One thought on “Tea Party Demands Obama Prove He’s Not A Gay Crack-Head

  1. lmfao, sinclair may be lying but this is one biased article. Im Canadian and have no dog in this fight except to defend gullible citizens that for some reason actually still trust the oligarchy that is US of A.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

A note about now defunct links to “The Regulator”…

A few months ago, the owners of the definitive website that was the major source for all things Larry Sinclair (from a “non-Sinclair believer” perspective) shut down their site.

Unfortunately, Sinclair Watch had hundreds of links to The Regulator‘s site.   Although the owners forward their Domain Name Server (DNS) to Sinclair Watch, the files were not available.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

A Closer Look At Larry Sinclair’s Inconsistent Story – Part 3

The elusive limo driver in Larry Sinclair’s meme has taken a back seat to Sinclair’s most dramatic “revelations” about Donald Young.   When the DY storyline appeared, the limo driver storyline declined significantly.

02/08/08: The Right Perspective Interview with Larry Sinclair:  I’ve got, listen, I have the limo driver. Everybody keeps telling me on You Tube, “Put your information out here. Let us investigate it.” I’m not that stupid. Are you kidding me? Everybody on You Tube is trying to kill me…you know…um threaten me…I don’t mean “kill […]

02/17/08: Cao’s Interview with Larry Sinclair Caller: Wants to know when the limo driver will come forward. Larry: …Now there are some issues that surround the company and some of those issues are immigration issues I don’t know if those pertain to the driver himself. I do know the driver was family members to the […]

01/23/08: Rense Interview I was introduced to Mr Obama when I got out of the limo, by the driver, apparently they were friends. I was speaking to the driver, the privacy window was down at that time and like I said, that was when I was made very clear at the time that the driver […]

Jay pointed out some observations about the limo driver aspect in Sinclair’s book in a relatively recent email to me:

His newly revealed story that Jagir Multani is connected to Rezko comes off as an opportunistic embellishment playing off the infamy of Rezko, just like he played off the death of Donald Young.

Again – like mum not knowing the phone numbers and not being in any yearbooks – Larry seems to spend undue effort justifying why there were ‘typos’ with regards to the Limo Driver’s name in his press conference.  This time it is missing luggage that ends up in Paris, also conveniently justifying his buying some new threads on his supporters’ dime.

How many changes did the limo drivers name go through?  First it was P. Multani on YouTube, then at the NPC – Paramjit Multani, amended verbally to Jagir Paramjit Multani, then in the statement released afterwards to Jagir P Multani and then finally to just Jagir Multani in the book?  This is reminiscent of a kid trying to slip the beans under his dinner plate, hoping no one will notice.

…and finally  in summation:

He also claimed that he had never promised to give the name of the limo driver to Parisi. In an email dated Sunday 24 Feb at 1.26pm Parisi makes it clear that Larry promised this over the phone when they had spoken on the Friday (22 Feb 08 – date of the Polygraph), calling him out for not providing the information.  Larry’s immediate response to Parisi was:

‘No, I can not and will not, you are posting that I lied, why would I put him in the middle of your firestorm now?’

Why did he give a name for the limo driver (P. Multani) during his meltdown on the night/early morning of 22-23 Feb 08 if there had been no established expectation that his was something he HAD to deliver on?

Further, why would he send an email to Parisi that said he was not going to give the information ‘now’.  The use of the term ‘now’ indicates he acknowledges a change has occurred to the initial understanding between them based on the fact that the polygraph
results had not gone the way he wanted them to (ergo he had a tanty).

Further, if you had just failed the polygraph and claimed it was rigged, what purpose would it serve to withhold the limo driver – the one person who could provide you with the corroborating evidence that you so desperately needed – who could have squashed the failed polygraph better than any soon to be created fabrication about conversations with Donald Young could ever have done?

The simple answer is he never had a limo driver to give up and he had made a promise he was unable to keep because he could not deliver on a lie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

A Closer Look At Larry Sinclair’s Inconsistent Story – Part 2

Sinclair’s advocates might say that everything that we are saying about Larry Sinclair is a lie.  The problem with that statement, however, is that I and others have used Sinclair’s own words.

Some might say that anyone is entitled to forget a fact or remember something different later on.  I would suggest to that person that in a normal situation, that would be absolutely true.

However, changing one’s story, embellishing details or taking away details along with changing  timelines seem to be on its face, what it really is…A LIE.

Let’s get started:

06/18/08: National Press Conference with Larry Sinclair 

QUESTIONER: ‘Why didn’t you keep your cell phone records when Mr. Young called you? Were you billed for the cell phone?’

 SINCLAIR: ‘I have personally contacted Sprint/Nextel approximately two weeks ago…uh…asking that they dig up the records off of their system for each of those phone numbers from those periods and provide them to us… they have confirmed that those records are available.’ 

QUESTIONER: ‘Are you going to post those on your website as well?’

 SINCLAIR: ‘I will.’ 

Contradiction 5 weeks later:

07/24/08: Rense Interview 

‘…what I’m finding absolutely amazing is, this is a firm that also represents Sprint Nextel corporation. The same phone company that is telling me they can not find me my phone records.’ Part 2: The Gay Angle

More…

Timeline of encounters:

- June 9th, 2011: Larry says he did drugs with and performed oral sex on Obama the evening of Saturday, November 6th 1999 and again in the afternoon of Sunday, November 7th, 1999. Larry claims he flew back to Colorado the morning of November 8th.

- January 18, 2008Larry claims in his YouTube video that he performed oral sex on Obama between November 3rd and November 8th of 1999 and that TWO days elapsed between the encounter in the limo and the encounter in the hotel room.

 

How he contacted the Obama campaign:

- June 9th, 2011: Says he called the campaign in September of 2007, quickly resulting in a series of phone calls and texts from Donald Young.

Versus:

- January 23, 2008: Tells Jeff Rense on his radio show he had emailed the campaign and had been ignored.  He never mentions having called the campaign, let alone having a series of phone, email or text conversations with anyone. No, he says he was completely ignored.

- February 17th, 2008: Tells Cao on her radio show that when he contacted the campaign that he was ignored in the hopes that he’d go away. The campaign simply failed to respond to him at all. Says he emailed Axelrod’s office because he didn’t have direct email address for Axelrod himself. Says a reporter finally encouraged him to put his story on YouTube.

A caller to that show, going by the handle “Helper”, asks Larry what he would have done if the campaign had ever told him outright that they were going to ignore his allegations. Larry’s reply: “Then I probably would have posted the YouTube video a lot sooner than I did.”

- March 10, 2008: In what Sinclair called “a bombshell”, Larry mentions, on the Jeff Rense Show, a ‘Paul Young’ and says he did have contact with him. He then corrects himself and says it was Donald Young and that it was his understanding that Young was gay.

- April 1, 2008: Larry files an affidavit with the CPD saying he was contacted by a “Mr. Young”, representing the Obama campaign, beginning in late September of 2007. So which is itThe campaign never responded to Larry and in fact ignored him? Or he was getting regular calls and texts from Donald Young?

 

Why he contacted the Obama Campaign

The above link demonstrates yet another contradiction on a lie that Sinclair told about why he wanted Obama to “come clean about his drug use”. After the above post went public, he deleted the meme from his story*.  In fact in his book, he says something different.

The original lie:

Sinclair then claimed that the reason he came forward with the You Tube video on January 17, 2008 was because the Obama camp had ignored his repeated calls.

All he wanted Obama to do, according to Sinclair, was to “come clean” about his drug use as an adult.   Sinclair claimed that he saw Obama address some kids about his drug use.   Sinclair told supporters,that’s the reason he contacted the Obama camp in September, 2007.  He wanted Obama to tell the ”truth”, which in Sinclair’s mind was that Obama did drugs as an adult in November, 1999.) 

Versus what he said in his book: (After his original lie was blown out of the water!)

It was late August, early September, 2007 that I decided that it was time to contact Barack Obama and request that he publicly correct his lies about the extent of his drug use.  I had come to this decision after repeatedly watching coverage on the likes of MSNBC, etc.,where the hype about Barack Obama being this “new kind of politics” and this “completely open and transparent candidate” had already started to get old.

*[EDITOR’S NOTE:] Ruh Roh, one of the many really smart regulars over at The Regulator brought this to my attention in two comments:

Apparently Sinclair has started using the old lie about seeing Obama talk to a kid or kids about drugs and how that motivated him (Sinclair) to contact the Obama campaign.   Now, that is a total contradiction from what he wrote in his book!

Ruh Roh’s comments:

kstreet,

Larry returns to his story about deciding to contact the Obama campaign after seeing Obama tell some schoolkids that he had ended his drug use in college in his most recent interview, dated June 9 2011 http://longliveamerica.com/previous-shows/. However, in this interview he says it was at a college in the Philadelphia area (Larry was rattling off the names of colleges and universities, not high schools). In that same interview, he implores people to read his book in order to get the ‘facts’ straight from him, even though the interview contradicts the book. LOL

kstreet,

Here’s a link to the transcript of the interview: http://theregulator.net/?p=9652#comment-136385

And the relevant quote:

 ” So in 2007, after he announced he was running, I just happened to see a news report and I swear to this day I still think it was on MSNBC, where people were asking what it was about Barack Obama that got them so excited. And I believe him and Hilary both had scheduled uh speaking arrangements or engagements around Temple in Pennsylvania or Penn Sta-I’m not sure which school- but there was something going on in the Philadelphia area with the two of them. And I’m listening to this one girl on the news report saying that she thought that he was just, ya know, open and honest and she admired him for being honest about, ya know, his drug use and, and, and everything and I’m like wait a minute, he’s not being honest because everything I’ve read, the guy swore up and down that he, at first, he didn’t do anything other than weed, then he comes out and says OK, ya know, he did blow when he could afford it, uh then it came out that he hadn’t done anything since high school, then of course that changed to where he was saying that well, no, every now and then in college.

So what I did was I contacted the Obama campaign in September of 2007. ”

Minutes later, in the same interview, Larry says: “Lemme tell you something, and that’s what I want. I want people to read the book. Don’t read what you find on the internet because people have taken bits and pieces and twisted it, you know, to fit their, um, agenda. ”

Even though he just related a different story regarding what motivated him to go public with his accusations than the one he relates in his book!

On Wednesday Part 3 – The Limo Driver contradictions. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

A Closer Look At Larry Sinclair’s Inconsistent Story

One thing that I can say for readers of this blog, and The Regulator, they love paying attention to detail as well as problem solving.

Over the past few weeks I have gotten different emails detailing observations about Larry Sinclair and his alleged “tryst” with Barack Obama back in November 1999 and the inconsistency of his tale.

Jay and DBKPC have written extensive accounts of Sinclair’s inconsistent story line but their work stops in 2008.

Now, I have decided to update some of those inconsistencies with a little help from some friends:

Recently someone wrote me an email about something that has bothered him for a while:

Strange observation about Larry’s story of sex and drugs in the limo. Whenever Larry gets really specific on the story, as he did in the KCEO interview last week and in the Hal Turner interview of 7/16/08,  he says that Obama removed the crack pipe and crack from his right pocket with his right hand. Does this strike anyone else as exceedingly odd? Obama is clearly left-handed, so why would these items be in his right pocket and removed with his right hand?

The observation was unique and hadn’t been mentioned in any of the work compiled of Sinclair’s glaring contradictions.

Here is another observation by someone else:

When was Larry in contact with the reporter from the NY Post? I thought it predated Crewdson’s involvement.

If it happened before 12/23/2007, we could say that if Larry had told the reporter(s) about Young, gee whiz, Donald Young would still be alive!

Another gem from the same observer:

I don’t recall the exact timing of Larry’s alleged interactions with the legitimate press. Perhaps they were after Young’s death.

But even so, Larry would have informed reporters that he had been contacted by Young and some sort of investigation would have occurred in an effort to corroborate the interaction and, if possible, what had been relayed.

Larry insists his interaction with Young was the only response he ever received to his queries of the Obama campaign, so he would have dutifully reported that to any reporter trying to verify his tale. He didn’t. And if he had, the reporters would have informed him of Young’s demise immediately; Larry wouldn’t have been unaware of Young’s passing until Cao told him about it.

In conjunction with the above observation, another intrepid observer wrote this to me:

If any of those reporters had been told about Young and had investigated him back in the fall of 2007 or early spring of 2008 , they would have mentioned anything they had learned when the TUCC scandal broke.  Can you imagine the delight they would have experienced in having gotten the story before Jeremiah Wright nearly derailed the Obama campaign? They would have floated into the office and broken out in song when they arrived.  Didn’t happen as far as I can recall. Every legitimate news outlet in the country covered the Wright/TUCC debacle, so at least one of Larry’s reporter buddies should have had Young research ready to go to make their story stand out.  No one did.  ~ Intrepid Observer

Here’s the point:

Larry Sinclair never mentioned Donald Young to any of the reporters he spoke to.  Chapter 7 of his book clearly shows there is no mention of Donald Young to any reporter that he spoke to.  The inconsistency is glaring.

It’s all about his credibility.   There was no Donald Young contact.  The story was part of a greater con to get then Sen. Obama out of the running for President of The United States.  (How’s that workin’ out for ya Sinclair?)

Recently Larry Sinclair chided someone for calling him a “con man”.  In so many words he implied that no one could prove that he conned anyone out of anything (or words to that effect.)  Yet, all one has to do is look at the entire Larry Sinclair and Barack Obama meme.  It was a story designed to become a media sensation and ultimately remove Barack Obama from the presidential 2008 presidential race.

However, nobody in the main stream media bought Sinclair’s story because of his criminal background.  In essence Sinclair, a multiple felony convicted FRAUD, was telling the  world that Obama was a fraud for not coming out about his “recent” drug use in 1999.

The only people that bought the story were people who hated Obama for various reasons as well as bigots and neo-nazi types.

More to come in Part 2 of A Closer Look At Larry Sinclair’s Inconsistent Story

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s