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.