Larry Sinclair book, Globe Magazine article, December 8, 2008, Edition, Fact versus Fiction, Lie detector test, Brain Tumor, Sinclair Obama drug encounter, November 1999, Obama inauguration ruined?

Globe Magazine has an article in the December 8, 2008 edition that provides details about Larry Sinclair and his new book “Obama & Larry Sinclair: Coke, Sex, Lies & Murder?”. I would like to first applaud Globe Magazine for publishing this article. It was just a few months ago that the Enquirer broke the story about John Edwards cheating on his wife. Both stories had been ignored or covered up by the Mainstream Media.

Too bad Globe was not accurate in their reporting. The so called tabloids were beginning to surpass the
MSM in legitimate reporting. Here are some examples of the continued lies and misrepresentations of Larry
Sinclair’s story:

Globe article:

“He also failed a disputed lie detector test over the sex and drug claims.”

Larry Sinclair: Fact vs Fiction

Larry Sinclair Press Conference

Globe article:

“Sinclair also says he’s been diagnosed with a brain tumor and has about a year to live.”

Larry Sinclair statement:

“Yes, I have been diagnosed with a Brain Tumor. NO, I am not on my death bed. In fact I never stated to the Globe or anyone else that I had less than a year to live. The funny thing about all these claims of my impending demise is that no one can make such a claim, not even me. The reason being is simple, when I was diagnosed I made the decision not to treat and to allow nature to take its course. I believe we all are going to die, and when it is our time there is nothing any of us or any Dr. can do. So my decision was mine and I have not allowed any Dr. to tell me what they believe is my expiration date.”

Read more from Larry Sinclair here:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/

About these ads

18 responses to “Larry Sinclair book, Globe Magazine article, December 8, 2008, Edition, Fact versus Fiction, Lie detector test, Brain Tumor, Sinclair Obama drug encounter, November 1999, Obama inauguration ruined?

  1. Yes, I noticed a few inaccuracies in their article (The Globe).

    I think they do it on purpose to promote controversy and response.

    Not to worry.

    Appears I should order a subscription since they are the ONLY ones with guts enough to report…

    Whoda’thunk.

  2. …and how much did he pay the limo driver?

    Ah, this is just so deep and dirty. As practically everything surrounding Obama.
    Of course only if You, like me, don’t believe a word he is saying.
    He has gotten out of everything so far, wonder what will take him down.
    But after all, he is just a puppet,
    in the long run he cannot win.

  3. On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).

  4. Herlihy, like other post-modernists, don’t like geography and those invisible lines drawn across the landscape called “borders.” They like to look at the planet from outer space.

    However, the rest of the world apparently does like constitutions and borders, for two reasons: one, almost all of the planet is blanketed by either “constitutional republics” or “constitutional monarchies” (the thing in common being a “constitution);” two, most of them like ours the best, or would like to live here, because they’ve used ours as their model.

    When she says the “natural born” clause has been called the “stupidest provision” in the constitution, she’s telling us more about herself than she imagines.

    To quote the Investor Business Daily ( since we’re exchanging quotes): “The Constitution, it has been said, is a document written by geniuses to design a government that can be run by idiots.”

    She also calls this provision “un-American.” I would have to agree — you see, IT was an act of genius (John Jay is to be credited), and it was the Framers who are the “geniuses” in this equation.

    Both Susan and I are on the “American” side of the equation, that is, we’re on the “idiot” side.

    Welcome to America, Susan!

  5. Before anyone criticizes the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution (by calling it the ‘stupidest provision’ in the constitution), they need to know that it was this clause all alone and by itself that was used by Congress to wipe out millions of dollars of property held by slave owners, and eliminate slavery within the jurisdiction of the United States, as witnessed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the “Citizenship Clause” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.

    You see, Congress always had the right to regulate “naturalization,” but slaves were not “foreigners,” so their authority to regulate naturalization did not apply.

    It was only the “natural born citizen” qualification, in order to be President of the United States that offered Congress the leverage to abolish slavery, and they used it to the fullest extent that they could, on the logic that all former slaves were “natural born,” and therefore had to be “citizens.” (Decided in U. S. vs. Rhodes (1866))

    Justice Rehnquist noted in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments. All of of these, Rehnquist says, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment is the most important.

    And, in fact, the Congressional debates record that the “Citizenship Clause” in Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan almost as an afterthought.

    In the end, it was also the “natural born citizen” clause that ended every cruel attempt to create second-class citizens through “Jim Crow” laws and the evil of Segregation.

    This is why I call it a “stroke of genius.” And, this is why it is so peculiar that Barack Obama seems to want to make an issue of it.

    I think this is why Alan Keyes is right to notice that Barack Obama appears not to ever dealt with the same issues that Ambassador Keyes had to in rising to his achievements, or he would have a greater respect for the meaning of the words: “natural born citizen!” This might be the greatest proof there is that he’s “really” NOT an American!

  6. Oops! Left off the last sentence: “Or, at least, as much of an ‘American’ as he would like us to believe!

  7. Obviouly Obama has developed a tick.
    Since I don’t watch those kind of “interviews” I had missed it.
    But during the fairytale hour with Mrs. Walters it must have been showing.
    here is the article
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82364

    btw. I knew a woman with that kind of tick. She was also playing a role all the time.
    I think this is beyond stress, it has to do with his whole act.

    “If You can’t take the heat…”
    I would like to say this:
    Obama, You have proven that You can win elections by making false promises.
    Money and cheating Chicago style helps too.
    What’s new? I new that already.
    You have proven that America is a racist country.
    98% AA votes speak a clear language.
    (You should not judge a man by the color of his skin, Hah?”)
    You know what? I knew that already too.
    Now since You have proven to us what we knew already could You let Hillary take over?
    This is no time for rookies.

  8. For those who are interested, here is John Yoo’s opinion on behalf of the U. S. Attorney General on the matter of well-documented right of “expatriation.” This is important in understanding how Stanley Ann Dunham was an expatriate in Indonesia, as was her minor-age son, Barry Soetero.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expatriation.htm

  9. Reference “tick”

    Perhaps it is caused by drug withdrawals.

  10. #

    Bob // November 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    For those who are interested, here is John Yoo’s opinion on behalf of the U. S. Attorney General on the matter of well-documented right of “expatriation.” This is important in understanding how Stanley Ann Dunham was an expatriate in Indonesia, as was her minor-age son, Barry Soetero.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expatriation.htm
    —————–

    My thoughts: Bob, please cut and paste the most appropriate wording and snail mail it to Chief Justice Roberts as well as the Attorney General of the United States.

  11. American4America

    Please, help understand this:

    Since there are two California Electors participating in the Keyes lawsuit, can they raise objections during the electoral vote?

    If they do raise objections to the eligibilty of a candidate, how is it resolved during the process of the vote?

    Who runs the Electoral College?

    A4A

  12. Janet — CJOTUS Roberts only accepts letters sent to him through the post office, and I wrote him a letter more than a month ago.

    In that letter, I expressed my concern that since 1974, when the Committee on the Judiciary Committee decided that violating the president’s constitutional oath was a high crime and misdemeanor warranting impeachment, trial, and removal from office, and also that “When the President is tried, the Chief Justice presides,” it seemed to me that the Chief Justice has a special and specific duty to take cognizance of the eligibility of any candidate to enter upon the powers of the Presidency, and not just Barack Hussein Obama.

    This is why I’m convinced that one or more of the cases that have been docketed in the Supreme Court will be heard by SCOTUS, in order that Chief Justice Roberts will have all the knowledge he needs to administer the inaugural oath.

  13. A pretty good video:

  14. Go to this site and then click the Preview
    of the Documentary:
    http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

  15. Leo Donofrio of the second court case on file at the Supreme Court of the United States will be on Plains Radio tonight at 10 pm. Should be interesting.

    http://www.plainsradio.com/chat.html

  16. CW and bloggers Q
    If the Supreme Court Justices decide to hear either Bergs (Dec. 1) or Leo Donofrio cases (Dec 5) or both, how long will this process take…day, week, month? Let’s think ahead and not allow the Justices to deliberitly bollix things up. We don’t want to get screwed on this critical issue.

  17. Top of the day to you, Mr. Wells. Hope you enjoyed a memorable holiday. Thanks for your continued efforts in keeping us informed of any new developments concerning the various/many court-proceedings challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, and also the latest with Mr. Sinclair’s efforts to be heard. Cannot wait until these hot-button issues are resolved one way or another. Happy December sir.

    Al

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