Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By

This is a new thread to talk about Taitz, Georgia, Birthers in general and oh yeah, SFB too.

American Thinker - A Right Wing perspective on the Birther Issues (H/T: Ruh Roh)

Two AT writers attended yesterday’s hearing in Georgia over President Obama’s eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  Professor John Lott, in an interview  with Teri O’Brien , recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

Ms. O’Brien commented to Professor Lott:  “Gods don’t debate.  They just issue decrees.”

And apparently they also tend to place themselves above the law.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on Georgia’s 2012 ballot.  In two previous American Thinker blog posts, “The Birthers Went Down to Georgia” and “Georgia on Obama’s Mind,” I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant.  The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused  to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

…Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend.  Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing.  This may be correct.  But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority…evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary…”

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter  he sent to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp.  He requested that Kemp “bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.”  Jablonski’s letter concluded: “We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded  with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26^th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning:  “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH  proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

[...]

Summary List of Physical Evidence

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.                  

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425                                              

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama’s alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery                                                                      

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify                                                                                                                              

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister                                                  

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns                                                                                                                            

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama’s passport records under FOIA                                                                   

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq. 

Related articles

• Rachel Maddow Takes On Georgia Court’s ‘Birther’ Case Against Obama: It’s Like ‘Dividing By Zero’ (mediaite.com)
• The Birthers Go Down To Georgia (outsidethebeltway.com)

What Just Happened?

For everyone who clicked on their The Regulator.net shortcut, and landed here, there’s a reasonable explanation:

Meesh and Zen have not been able to give The Regulator the attention it requires to keep running.  Therefore, Zen made the decision to forward visitors of The Regular to this site.

I, for one will miss “The Reg” and hope that it will be up and running again some time in the future.

Anyone looking in from the Sinclair camp, need not worry.   Zen and Meesh’s decision was NOT about giving in to Sinclair.  It was strictly an internal one.

To my Regulator Buddies, please feel free to post over here at any time.  I’m certain after the initial shock wears off, I’ll see more and more of you guys.

To Zen and Meesh…carry on…I got this.  

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…

An Example of Incredible Stupidity and Probable Sociopathy

Here is true immorality: ignorance and stupidity; the devil is nothing but this. His name is Legion. ~ Gustave Flaubert 

I was going through some of my earlier posts here on Sinclair Watch and came across this one…

First the back story:

Sinclair had been visited by the United States Secret Service on January 28, 2010 because he had been faxing threats to the POTUS, FLOTUS, Rham Emanuel and others.  He had an initial visit from the Secret Service,  prior to the one in question and this was a second visit because the President Obama was speaking at a local College near Sinclair’s place of residence.

This is what Sinclair reported:

My Baby sitter has finally left after Obama shut his mouth in Tampa. While one Secret Service Agent sat outside my home all morning/afternoon, another one was in my mothers home waking up a 69 year old ill woman who has nothing to do with what I say or write.

When I read that this morning I was infuriated.

Once again I ask…

What did Madeline Dunham have to do with anything Obama said or wrote? JUSTIFY YOUR ACTIONS Sinclair:

Friday, October 24, 2008

I JUST SPOKE WITH SENATOR OBAMA’S SISTER

I just spoke with Maya, the half sister of Senator Barack Obama in an effort to speak with Madelyn Dunham.

While I would have liked to ask Maya some questions, I decided out of respect to her (you could hear in her voice that now was not the time) I left a message with Maya for her Grandmother, and I will contact Maya at a later time with my questions.

The first call was disconnected by accident, but was answered by a gentleman answering the phone “Dunham residence…”

Posted By Larry Sinclair at 10:01 PM 23 comments Links to this post

Please keep in mind that Mrs. Madelyn Dunham, Barack Obama’s maternal grandmother was very ill at that time and died about a week or so later.  November 3, 2008.

There was an actual recording of his conversation with Maya but he has since deleted it.

Here’s my point:

Throughout this entire saga, Larry Sinclair has exhibited the tendency to only see perceived harm done to him but has never been able to recognize the harm he does to others.

I have to wonder if it’s stupidity, sociopathic behavior or BOTH!

But wait, there’s more.  

The folks over at The Regulator have published everything Sinclair did during and after Madelyn Dunham’s death.

He had heard rumors that Mrs. Dunham may have been murdered or died before the official story’s version.  So he decided to investigate the matter…

You won’t believe it:  http://theregulator.net/?p=9910#comment-216627  (See the blockquote articles.)

Sinclair has a way of injecting himself into a “perceived”  newsworthy story (having anything to do with Barack Obama.)  On more than one occasion  he has looked like a complete idiot by involving himself…only to drop the story with no further updates if it didn’t turn out the way he envisioned it.

Sinclair decries the fact that the Secret Service was parked outside his mother’s house and disturbed the ill, 69 – year old, while bragging about doing something similar but more egregious.  It’s simply astounding.

Website Changes

Pardon the interruption while I decided which website layout would best fit  Sinclair Watch.  I believe that this one is the one I’ll stay with for at least a year a few months.

Thanks for your cooperation and steady readership during this process.

Kstreet

Cell Phone Records…Did Someone Say “Cell Phone Records”?

The following will expose Larry Sinclair’s duplicity and hypocrisy:

Today, Larry Sinclair wrote this:

1. On November 30, 2011 Herman Cain stated on Your World with Neil Cavuto that “he and his Attorney have requested access to Ginger White’s phone records.” Why would Mr. Cain need access to Ms. White’s phone records? Would Mr. Cain agree to release his phone records? Wouldn’t Mr. Cain’s own cell phone records provide him and his attorney with the time frame of the phone calls and text messages between him and Ms. White?

So my questions are similar:

Why would Mr. Sinclair need access to then Senator Obama’s phone records?  Wouldn’t Mr. Sinclair’s own phone records provide him and his attorney with the number of times he called the Obama campaign or the number of times Donald Young called him?

<><><><><><>

A Regulator commenter nails it:

Dennis says:

December 1, 2011 at 11:31 am

Re: Cell Phone Records

What a great idea. Maybe LardBrain would like to release his own cell phone records re: Donald Young and those “calls” he keeps making reference too. Oh right. The phone company won’t give him those records. Yeah, sure, that’s the ticket…Maybe Cain is having the same problem.

<><><><><><>

Following, is a request Sinclair made to obtain Obama’s phone records…with a totally fabricated justification for why he wanted them:

March 9, 2008

RE: REQUEST FOR CELL PHONE AND EMAIL RECORDS 

Dear Senator Obama and Mr. Axelrod:I am submitting this written request asking that you and Mr. Axelrod authorize the release of the following:

1. Cell Phone numbers, service providers for all personal and official cell phones held by Senator Obama for the time period of November 3, 1999 thru November 8, 1999.

2. Cell phone numbers, service providers for all personal and campaign phones for Senator Obama, David Axelrod, David Plouffe from January 18, 2008 to current date or at the least through February 29, 2008.

3. All email communication both personal, campaign related and AKP Message & Media’s from January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008 for Senator Obama, David Axelrod and David Plouffe.

4. All payouts made from AKP Message & Media, Obama for America, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Senator Obama’s accounts for the period of January 18, 2008 through February 29, 2008.

This request is being made based on your statement that you intend to bring a new politics to America, a politics of openness, and accountability. The records being requested here can bring to light and/or put to rest claims made about your involvement with Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com and the rigged polygraph arranged; can if you claim you never met me (as is exactly the claim made by your office directly to John Crewdson of the the Chicago Tribune) show you to be lying or telling the truth by releasing your cell phone records etc…

It would seem to me that you would be more interested in getting this matter settled than your continued organized attacks on the Internet.

I respectfully request you respond to this request without delay. I strongly urge you to consider that you yourself can if these things are , as your staff continue to claim, untrue, then your agreeing to release these records should not be a difficult thing for you to do.

Sincerely,

Larry Sinclair

<><><><><><>

There you have the unmitigated gall and hubris, not to mention show boating and hypocrisy of Larry Sinclair who actually sent a letter to then Senator Obama requesting the above information.

Was it to placate his supporters?  His reasoning about “shedding light on the president’s involvement in Sinclair’s polygraph tests was so bogus and transparent that I’m sure the Obama camp had a huge laugh back then!

It was nothing but hyperbole and showmanship to placate his supporters.  To my knowledge Sinclair never followed up on that original letter.

So, Mr. Sinclair, tell me again, YOU think Herman Cain should NOT request the phone records of Ginger White because…?

“It’s not about the gay sex, truly”

Sure, Larry Sinclair…it was NEVER about the gay sex right?  The number of times that you speculated about Barack Obama having gay sex in other countries, with White House Staff, and with the late choir master of TUCC, Donald Young is too numerous to count.

I use the word speculate, because in every instance, you offer no proof, just a tawdry imagination that seems to embellish more with each subsequent internet radio interview.

<><><><><><>

In Jay’s Analysis we find the answers to Sinclair’s metamorphosis from claiming that he simply wanted to confront Obama about his drug use during their “tryst” in November 1999 to incessantly bringing up the sex angle at every turn and embellishing the sex angle as often as possible.

One can simply read the following transcripts to know that it was ALWAYS about the gay sex and even more so now since the Cain fiasco has been publicized.

Sinclair’s latest post looks at the media’s handling of Ginger White‘s accusations contrasted with the media ignoring his allegations.  So in essence he has ramped up the sex angle to its highest frequency in the last month or so.

<><><><><><>

Larry emphatically states that his allegations about Obama are not about the gay sex, it just had to come out to explain the crack use, with the added little extra that these scandals are a dime a dozen with regards to politicians these days – ho hum [#2] and it wasn’t intended as a reason not to vote for Obama [#16]. But if the gay sex was not an issue why did Larry go on about the implications of Obama getting busted receiving oral sex in the White House [#3], or getting caught in another country where gay sex is illegal [#7] or musing about the character of a man who would receive oral sex from strangers [#17]? Further, it was certainly all about gay sex with his Donald Young story. In truth, he has worked this angle all along.

[#2] 01/23/08: Rense Interview

‘I never had any intentions of coming forward with any allegations of gay sex against Barrack Obama, but in order for them to understand how I knew and how I saw him doing the crack, it had to come out…When I did become aware that he was involved in state politics it wasn’t that much of an issue with me, I have seen politicians from the local level to the US Government level that have been involved in some freaky things… I mean there’s been many it’s not something that is so unique that it would stop you and make you think.’

[#3] 02/05/08: Obama’s Sex & Drug Party pt3 (Sinclair’s words…)

‘Now perhaps you do support Obama and he does make it to the Oval Office and in his first year you know um he’s busted gettin’ head or smoking crack in the White House. You know then you got what you deserve. Right?’

[#7] 02/26/08: Rense Interview

‘What’s going to happen if he does get in office, like you said, and engages in the same behavior with someone in a foreign country to where not only do they blackmail him but say it is one of those countries where homosexuality of any sort is a federal crime to the point where he would be subject to arrest and prosecution.’

‘I honestly believe that before this is over with I am not going to be standing here alone with these allegations – I truly and firmly believe that eventually there are going to be more people that have had relations with Senator Obama who are going to have the guts and the fortitude to finally come out of the closet so to speak and I think when that happens it is going to be too late for this country.’

‘I am raising questions about the validity of his reports, ok. Dr Gordon made it very clear that the computer analysis of the polygrams indicated no deception indicated yet Dr Gelb did not even include in his report the results of the computer analysis of the exam.’

[#16] 07/04/08: Roger Friedinburg

‘I didn’t tell the sex part because, you know, I said it was bad or a reason not to vote for him.’

It was in March that I started becoming aware a Donald Young, who was an openly gay man, a choir director at Trinity United Christian Church, who, ah,…, Barack Obama himself had sent personal condolence letters to his family, after his murder. And I started putting pieces together [went to CPD]…and I told them that I felt that they needed to look into the possibility that Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright either knew the person that killed Donald Young or actually hired the person that killed Donald Young.’

[#17] 07/16/08: Hal Turner

‘I mean, you know – here’s a man that was smoking crack cocaine, getting blowjobs from an openly gay individual that he never met before that night.’

HT:  Now you allegedly took a lie detector test.

LWS: I took what was supposed to be one, yes.

HT:  And, why don’t you tell the folks what the results were.

LWS:  Well, actually I’m still not sure what the results are, because I still haven’t even been provided the, ahh, the raw data or or anything from it other than the reports provided by Dan Parisi. uhh, Edward Ira Gelb, the fake Ph.d claims that the results said I was lying. the computer analysis of the or uhh what raw data was available, made available to uhh, Gordon Barland (sp) …uhh, according to his report, actually showed that no deception….was indicated. however, he did in fact concur with Edward Gelb’s decision, because he wrote something in there and I think there’s some paragraph in there that uhhh, normally if you have a contradiction between the computer analysis and the human score, you tend to refer to the umm, defer to the human score which…I think that sounds a little fishy.

<><><><><><>

The next installment looks at updated claims from Sinclair that the media has literally ignored him since he broke the “story”.  The most astounding thing I find in all of this, from Jan 17, 2008 when Sinclair came out with his accusatory video, to the present day, is the fact that he has embellished much more since his original You Tube video… with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!  He wrote a book that was all about his words and his perception of being picked on but not one iota of evidence.

Yet he compares himself  to the media’s willingness to interview Herman Cain accusers but not him.  In all honesty, as I examine all of this, I have to wonder how Sinclair got away with this deception for so long.  No, not with the mainstream media, but with people who follow him and send him money.  It’s damned incredulous!