Minnesota Man Claims He Took Drugs & Had Sex with Barack Obama in 1999

Barack Obama now faces a new challenge - one that is sure to be much more scandalous than anything he's seen so far. If the allegations are to be believed, it's also a scandal that his campaign has tried to cover up. A Minnesota man has come forth, claiming that he took cocaine in 1999 with Obama, the then-Illinois legislator, and participated in homosexual acts with him.

Larry Sinclair, the man making the claims, said his story was ignored by the news media. Still not willing to let this one slip quietly under the rug, Sinclair made a YouTube video in which he made his case. It's had over half a million views already, but the story has still been largely ignored by the news media.

Sinclair's next step was to file a suit in Minnesota District Court, in which he alleges threats and intimidation by the Democratic presidential candidate's staff.

Still out to prove that he is telling the truth, Sinclair said he is willing to submit to a polygraph test. A website (WhiteHouse.com) has come forth offering him $10,000 for the right to record the polygraph test, and another $100,000 if he passes it.

Sinclair lives in Duluth, Minnesota, and in his filing, charges that his civil rights have been violated by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Obama, David Axelrod of AKP Message & Media in Chicago, and the Democratic National Committee have been named as defendants in the case.

Sinclair, who describes himself as gay, claims they met in an upscale Chicago lounge. They left in Sinclair's limo, where the drug use and sex allegedly took place for the first time. Sinclair says that Obama smoked crack cocaine, and that he snorted powder cocaine provided by Obama.

Sinclair, 46, says that he no longer uses drugs. He claims to be physically disabled, but says that he was not physically impaired in 1999 when they met.

Regarding the claims, Sinclair said:

"My motivation for making this public is my desire for a presidential candidate to be honest. I didn't want the sex thing to come out. But I think it is important for the candidate to be honest about his drug use as late as 1999."

Check out Larry Sinclair's YouTube Videos and his claims against Barack Obama:

There are several other videos he made in response to the first video, and other's inquiries. Check those out here.


It has been discussed by other mediums that Barack Hussein Obama’s religion is irrelevant to his candidacy. Others claim the complete opposite, pointing to the fact that both of his names are common within the Muslim world, and that all of his paternal ancestors were devout Islamists in Kenya. Other’s claim that his religion makes him an unwanted political force within our current historical context. Meanwhile, this issue has been consistently downplayed by the Obama campaign since they understand the repercussion that these facts may have on the mind of most Americans who, faced with the odd possibility of having to accept a man with Muslim roots in the White House at a time when we are fighting a global war against Islamic fundamentalists, may suddenly turn to a more “comfortable” candidate at the last minute. Nevertheless, these historical aspects should not be our focus at this time, since it could be argued that electing a man with a “diverse” background could minimize the supposed hatred that these religious fanatics have of the United States and alter the view that Americans are “bigots” and “degenerates”. Nonetheless, what is important to consider is the completely opposite proposition, by pointing out that Barack Obama’s background could possibly INCREASE the hatred our Country generates and help in the recruiting efforts of our enemies, all of this simply because of Obama’s Muslim past. How could his Muslim heritage actually hurt him among Muslim fundamentalists? The answer lies in religious apostasy.

In Islam the concept of religious observance and “acceptance” works in a slightly different way than in Christianity. To a Muslim, there is no particular rite that would “mystically” make you a Muslim, unlike in other Abrahamic traditions (were you have circumcision and baptism). Simply stated, a child born into a Muslim family shares in the blessings of belonging to said righteous family. Within the traditions of the Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence), a child’s father is the one that determines whether you are born a Muslim or not (this is also affirmed by the Qur’an itself). The concept is based on the Islamic belief that only a Muslim man should marry a non-believing woman, since he would be fairer to the non believer (and is also the “head” of the house), while a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non believer, since she could be abused and not allowed to practice her religion. This aspect would make any person born of a Muslim man a Muslim himself, similar to the Jewish matriarchal tradition in which a person is “Jewish” based on his mother’s affiliation. Further more, what makes a Muslim “complete” within his faith is the practice of Islam’s “five pillars”, which are spearheaded by the “shahadah” declaration, in which a person declares his basic understanding that “there is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet”, along with ‘daily prayer’, ‘fasting during Ramadan’, ‘alms-giving’ and ‘pilgrimage’ to Mecca. These are very important aspect of the Islamic religion which must be continuously observed as to fulfill the basic duties of a pious Muslim. Thus, any person who has either been born into Islam or has previously accepted the basic (shahadah) tenets of this religion, and has later “departed” or “fallen away” from them is, by Qur’anic definition, an apostate. What is the accepted Islamic punishment for such an act? Death, beheading being the most common form of it’s application.

Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly mentioned that he is a Christian, unlike his father and most of his paternal family in Kenya who have been known in the region as wealthy and devout Muslims. Since Obama’s mother was a “secularist humanist” from the United States, and his father abandoned them when he was three years old, his religious beliefs seem to have grown independently of his Kenyan background. What he does not always mention to the public, although it is well known, is the fact that his step-father was also a Muslim from Islamic Indonesia, were Obama actually spent many years as a child. Maybe his upbringing had a lot more Islamic influence as he claims to have had. Nevertheless, all of these facts do matter when you take into consideration the issue of Obama’s religion and the subsequent consequences that it will have when we present him to the Islamic world as a badge of “pride” and as a supposed testament to our “progressiveness” as Americans. To most orthodox Muslims and Islamic Fundamentalists, Barack Obama is worse than any Christian evangelical President could ever be because to them, he is a traitor to Allah (subhana wu-ta-ala) and his Prophet. What does the Qur’an say about apostasy?

Surah 16:106 “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion (his heart remaining firm in Faith, but such as open their breast to Unbelief), on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” In the traditions of the Prophet (from the highly respected Bukhari compendium) you will also find: Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17: “Narrated Abdullah: ‘Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.’” Based on this, and many other legal documents of Islamic jurisprudence, Barack Obama is an apostate and would be sentenced to death by the most lenient of judges if he were on trial (excepting some Shi’a courts were he would be given life imprisonment). What repercussions does all of this have on the United States?

Americans have constantly pointed out the fact that having a “fundamentalist” Christian for a President has been highly negative for our image around the world. But what they don’t realize, out of their ignorance regarding Muslim culture and beliefs, is that an apostate President would be 100 times worse. Let’s see what the Qur’an says about the “people of the book” (Christians): Surah 9:10-11 “They have no regard for kinship or treaties with believers, for they are transgressors. But, if they repent and are firm in devotion and pay the zakat (tax), then they are your brothers in faith. We explain Our commands distinctly for those who understand.” Let’s now read what is said about those who were born (or became) Muslims and then renegaded their religion for another: Qur’an, Surah 16:106 “Whosoever denies having once believed, unless he is forced to do so while his heart enjoys the peace of faith, and opens his mind to disbelief will suffer the wrath of God. Their punishment will be great.” and Surah 16:90 “But those who reject faith after they accepted it and then go on adding to their defiance of faith never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have gone astray.” and finally, Surah 16:87 “Of such, the reward is, that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all Mankind.” As we can clearly deduce, the “people of the book” may be “disliked”, but the apostate is reviled. [all emphasis is mine]

Our collective lack of understanding regarding Islamic philosophy and ideology is what has caused our government to continuously stumble upon complications and unsurmountable odds throughout their attempts to combat “Jihadism” and other Islamic movements. Americans seem to assume that Muslims are similar to modern secular Christians, in that they can separate candidates and politics from their religiosity, even though they have consistently proven that they will always do the complete opposite. Even here in the United States, Muslims overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, because they believed that as a “pious” Christian, he would also represent the interests of Islam. Of course, after 9-11 and other events, this has dramatically changed and many of these same voters are today lost among the current political field, looking for someone that could also represent them. Today, some Muslims may feel tempted to vote for a man like Obama because of his Muslim background, even though he openly professes his apostasy on a daily basis. Nonetheless, most demographic studies have demonstrated that they will still gravitate towards Republican candidates who seem to profess similar socially conservative views (excepting maybe the younger American Muslims who have had to wrestle with a secular and capitalist society all of their lives). But to those Muslims who populate the rest of our planet, the prospects of a Barack Obama Presidency does not loom large in their horizon as a beacon of hope and change. To many radicals, Obama’s preeminence within American politics is a dark symbol of things to come. Just like traditional Christians believe in the concept of the Anti-Christ, Muslims do as well, and we have already seen Islamic websites which label Obama in that light. We can only imagine what other ridiculous labels these fundamentalists will lay at our feet in the upcoming months, all thanks to this inexperienced senator from Illinois.

Hopefully, Americans will increasingly acquire a more sophisticated perspective on Islamic matters, which may allow us to make intelligent and rational decisions when faced with our current war on “terror”. Of course, I agree that we are not supposed to allow anyone outside of our Nation to regulate our political climate, nor make decisions for us in regards to a candidate, but we should also be aware that we do not live in a “bubble” into which the outside world cannot enter. Those who we put in power greatly alter our Country’s destiny, for good or for bad (Bush being a great example of the last one). For this reason, understanding each Presidential hopefuls’ background is crucial in making an informed determination. Barack Obama may not be a Muslim, and very well be a devout Christian, but ironically this is exactly his problem when he is poised to confront the Islamic world. It is his Islamic religious affiliation, by birth and association, that leaves him vulnerable to the hatred and discredit of our allies and enemies. The United States, by electing a Muslim apostate to it’s highest office, might be leading our civilization down a path that we may not consider a safe one to travel. Without assuming the role of “fear” mongers, and simply allowing realism to set in, if Americans don’t educate themselves about their enemies as soon as possible, and make political decisions with this knowledge, we may be forced to eventually understand them when it has become too late to modify our strategy and alter it’s effects.

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.



These videos are in fact a bit recent, but I will nevertheless include them in our new “reminiscing” section of this Blog (a thread which aims to bring into the public ‘memory’ events and topics from the ‘past’ that still hold significance in today’s political discourse). They definitely give you an interesting glimpse of some very controversial perspectives that were being ventilated at the beginning of the Democratic race for the nomination (2008) among many African American leaders. Obviously, these words were not uttered by anybody within the Mainstream Media since it would have been considered a racist ‘heresy’ and an ‘insensitive’ assessment of the ‘meaning’ of Obama’s candidacy. Nevertheless, this discussion within the African American community was very prominent, and this one in particular was being preached in Harlem (NY). It alludes to the issue of the Mainstream Media’s compulsion to support Barack Obama as a “Great Black Hope”, a subject which seems to have become an uncomfortable topic for many to discuss.

I post it here because I believe that many of us should deeply consider this preacher’s words and also discuss the validity of his statements (if any) in this forum. We know very well that everyone will have a divergent opinion regarding the true significance of having a Barack Obama Democratic nominee (and the first Black nominee), but we should never reject the views of those who may not get sufficient exposure to vent their feelings on the matter.


Obama's fundraising collides with his rhetoric
Union says senator did little to save jobs
By Bob Secter

Tribune reporter

12:47 PM CST, February 2, 2008


Maytag workers whose jobs were shipped to Mexico serve as consistent characters in Barack Obama's stump speech. He employs their stories in railing against corporations that use trade pacts to replace well-paid union workers with low-cost foreign ones.

It is a ready applause line for the Illinois presidential hopeful, one that he has been reciting almost verbatim since he was a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, when appliance giant Maytag was in the process of shutting a refrigerator plant here, putting 1,600 people out of work.

But the union that represented most of those Galesburg workers isn't impressed with Obama's advocacy. It has endorsed his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Its leaders say they wish he had done more about their members' plight.

What rankles some is what Obama didn't do even as he expressed solidarity four years ago with workers mounting a desperate fight to save their jobs.

Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company's directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile.

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa.

As Illinois readies for its part in next week's Super Tuesday primaries, the high-profile treatment given the Maytag situation by the state's homegrown candidate is a reminder of the often awkward intersection of populist rhetoric, complex issues and the financial realities of presidential campaigning.

Obama's rhetoric on Maytag has been unswerving and underscored by the closure of other U.S. appliance plants by Whirlpool Corp., which bought Maytag in 2006.

In his victory speech after Saturday's South Carolina primary, Obama spoke yet again of "the Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors."

Beyond such talk, there is little evidence that Obama went to any lengths to fight the Galesburg shutdown. Some analysts say his ties to the Crowns--Lester's son, James, is the Illinois finance chairman of Obama's presidential run--leave him open to criticism.

Charles Lewis, founder of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, said in the era of big money politics there's often a disconnect between the passionate words of a politician and the financial interests of the wealthy benefactors who help bankroll their campaigns.

"It is hypocritical," said Lewis. "Democrats are often in a tricky position because they are close to labor and talk about the homeless and poor, but they need money and have to turn to the captains of industry to get it."

The Obama campaign said the Maytag workers' union never asked him to intervene with Crown and that he would have done so if they had. Union officials said they were unaware of the Crowns' ties to Maytag or to Obama.

In his campaign, Obama has not shied from condemning rivals for straying from their own populist images.

Locked in an increasingly personal war of words with Clinton, Obama has attacked her for long-ago service on the board of Wal-Mart, which has frosty relations with organized labor. Before John Edwards dropped out of the race this week, Obama hit him for financial ties to a hedge fund with investments in Whirlpool. The Obama critique stressed Whirlpool's role in closing U.S. factories, including Maytag's longtime headquarters in Newton, Iowa.

Crown family members are major Democratic Party donors. Some have given to Clinton's campaigns for the U.S. Senate in New York. But in the presidential run, their money is behind Obama, campaign records show. The Crowns and employees of their family-run holding company have given at least $195,000 to Obama's U.S. Senate and presidential campaigns.

Lester Crown made his first contribution to Obama, $2,100, last February and hosted a fundraiser for him last fall. But Crown's wife has pumped $16,100 into Obama' coffers, beginning with a $12,000 gift to his U.S. Senate campaign in 2003.The economic viability of Maytag's Galesburg operation is still in dispute. Obama wrote extensively about the plant in his 2006 best seller, "The Audacity of Hope," and clearly sided with frustrated union workers who insisted their plant was profitable and productive but was being sacrificed to corporate greed.

Maytag management announced plans in 2002 to shutter the Galesburg factory. In an interview, Lester Crown said the plant hadn't been competitive for years and that Maytag gave two years' notice of the shutdown to minimize the pain. "Barack can say whatever he wants, but this was not an example of corporate indifference. That's absolutely inaccurate," Crown said, though he stressed that his support for Obama is still unwavering.

In a statement issued late Thursday, the Obama campaign defended his record on standing up for American workers against special interests. "Because of Obama's history of working with Democrats and Republicans to get things done, our campaign has generated the support of voters and contributors with a wide range of policy beliefs," the statement read.

Most of the Galesburg workers were members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, whose national president has complained loudly this campaign season that Obama's support for Maytag workers was more show than substance.

IAM spokesman Rick Sloan, said the union's problems with Obama go beyond Galesburg. Sloan complained that Obama has not used his position in the Senate to help Illinois IAMAW members hurt in other plant shutdowns as well as the United Airlines bankruptcy. Obama also spurned the union's endorsement interview last summer, Sloan said.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and former U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, who represented Galesburg, aggressively lobbied Maytag to change its mind in 2004, Sloan said. Obama did not, Sloan said, adding: "He could easily have said, Lester my friend, there are folks hurting in Galesburg, you're on the board, what can you do?"Obama first took up the Maytag workers' cause in mid-2004 as they mounted a futile effort to save the Galesburg plant. Obama met with the workers and rallied with them there to fight the closing, but did not broach the subject with Crown. "I have never had a conversation with State Sen. Obama or U.S. Sen. Obama regarding the Maytag Corporation," Crown told the Tribune.

Maytag shut the Galesburg plant after Labor Day 2004. At the time, Crown owned nearly 4 percent of Maytag's common stock, according to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another 5 percent of Maytag stock was owned by an investment group that included Crown's children and relatives, the filings show.A year later, when the company announced its sale to Whirlpool, the combined Maytag stakes of Crown and an investment group including his children and relatives were worth around $150 million.

Supporters of Obama note that he was still serving in the Illinois Senate in 2004 and was only a candidate for the U.S. Senate with no power beyond the bully pulpit to fight the closing. Since his election, he has backed legislation to combat the overseas export of American jobs. In May 2006, Obama wrote to the Secretary of Labor asking for assistance for displaced Maytag workers.

There still is little awareness of Obama's ties to the Crowns in Galesburg, a blue-collar town of 37,000 in western Illinois, and much admiration toward him. "I like Obama," said Mary Ann Armstrong, who lost her job inspecting refrigerator parts for defects when the plant closed. "He was new back then and probably did all he could do."

The factory's shutdown was a blow to Galesburg, but the withering of its manufacturing base began well before NAFTA's 1993 ratification. Galesburg has endured a slow bleeding of factories and blue collar job since the 1970s.

Maytag's closing caused undeniable pain in Galesburg. The tax base is down, as is school enrollment. But it wasn't cataclysmic. Obama has suggested former Maytag workers have been forced to scrounge for minimum-wage pay. Still, many have landed new factory jobs 45 minutes away in the Quad Cities and Peoria.Perhaps the most lasting blow from Maytag's departure is to the reputation of Galesburg, the birthplace of poet Carl Sandburg. At Dr. Mike's computer repair shop on Main Street, owner Mike Kroll sees Obama's frequent focus on Galesburg and Maytag as welcome but also counterproductive. "It would be nice," he said, "to see Galesburg as the feature of some other story than the death knell of manufacturing in Middle America."

Return to ObamaTruth.Org

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko
Tale in national spotlight, thanks to Clinton

January 24, 2008
All of a sudden, seems as if everybody's talking about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko. Even Jay Leno.

Rezko already was a big story in Chicago, accused of influence-peddling in the Blagojevich administration and set to face trial Feb. 25.

Having a hard time keeping track of the facts? Here are eight things to know:

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.

2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.


To see the University of Chicago Hospitals 990 Federal Tax Form for 2005, Click Here. [PDF document]

on page #1, line 18
you'll see that this not-for-profit hospital reported making a profit of $103,642,743 in 2005.
on page 7
you'll see that they spent $3,784,680 on marketing (advertising) attempting to increase market share.
on page 29
you'll see they spent $5,280,545 on collection agency fees.
on pages 45-46 and 48
you'll see how much the executives are making.


after only 3 months of fiscal year 2008, they have already reported making $51,015,000 in profits.

The University of Chicago Hospitals accused of patient dumping.

Find out what Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General had to say. Click here.
From the HHS website:

May 08, 2006 The University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH), Illinois, agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve its liability for CMPs under the patient dumping statute. The OIG alleged that the hospital failed to accept an appropriate transfer of a 61-year-old male who presented to another emergency department with a complaint of flank pain. UCH had specialized capabilities not available at the transferring hospital and allegedly refused to accept transfer after learning that the patient did not have insurance. UCH then later agreed to accept transfer of the patient only if he provided proof of funds in a bank account. The patient was transferred to another hospital where he died.


Powerful web site!

Obama has been sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee and HASN'T ONCE traveled to Iraq or Afghanistan to meet with the troops and the field commanders. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have traveled several times to both Iraq and Afghanistan to meet with troops and commanders. Good leaders speak inspiring words, GREAT LEADERS are inspired by those they lead. Obama talks change, and Hillary walks change. She offers real change that you can put in the bank for real people, and not just words that you can take to the Xerox machine. The real choice is between Hillary Clinton or John McCain. It's not about fighting, Obama, it is all about governing.

The main stream media has been remarkably soft on Obama. Now that Larry Sinclair has completed his polygraph test regarding his alleged affair and drug use with Obama, which was posted on whitehouse dot com web site, it will be interesting to see if they pick up on the story and if this hurts Obama.

Thanks Cleveland Leader

AMEN!!! I could not agree more, over exposured - burnout, I got for watching all the news coverage on Senator Obama. If Senator Obama wins the nomination, it will be because the press gave him the nonination, not on merit. The media did his dirty work to beating Senator Clinton down. If Senator Obama, was truely the man he claims, he would speak out on this issue. Whats happening to Senator Clinton is reverse discrimination! I am just glad, Nadar is back in the game, if Senator Clinton win, my vote is for Ralph Nadar!

If Hillary Clinton doesn't win, I will vote republican for the first time in November.

It seems the media -- MSNBC, CNN, etc. -- is now making the news, and not reporting it!


Come on Kids. I know its tough when your first love lets you down. It happens to everyone. It time, you'll get over it.

With US missiles about to be installed in Poland under the direct
supervision of Ian Brzezinski, the Pentagon's top man for Eastern
Europe, the world is demonstrably moving towards a US ­ Russian
superpower confrontation with unmistakable thermonuclear overtones.
The one missing ingredient in this pattern is a suitable demagogue in
the White House who can make an appeal for national mobilization in
this crisis, including quite possibly a restoration of the military
draft, planeloads of body bags, and a dimension of economic sacrifice
and tax increases which Bush never proposed. This is the role of
Zbigniew Brzezinski's puppet and Manchurian candidate, Obama. The
anointed one can still be prevented from carrying out the
Brzezinski-Soros plan to seize the Democratic presidential nomination
through the domestic equivalent of a color revolution or people power

The dynasty we need to worry about at this point is neither the Obamas,
Clintons nor the Bushes. The main concern today is an extension of
the Brzezinski dynasty. Zbigniew Brzezinski, founder of the
Trilateral Commission, member of the Council on Foreign Relations,
and RAND Corporation operative, personally selected Carter as
president of the United States in the mid-1970s. The resulting
1977-1981 Brzezinski Trilateral administration was an unmitigated
catastrophe, leading to two decades of severe political reaction from
which this country has not recovered. Given the ongoing breakdown
crisis of the Anglo-American banking and currency systems, another
Brzezinski administration would pose the threat of thermonuclear war
with Russia in an infinitely more acute form than in the 1970s. After
a few months of Zbigniew Brzezinski running the show, the era of Bush
and the neocons might begin to look like the good old days. It is
still possible to avoid this nightmare by timely action.

Events of the past few days indicate that the Zbigniew Brzezinski
faction of lunatic Russia haters have now won the upper hand inside
the secret councils of the Anglo-American finance oligarchy,
displacing the hitherto dominant George Shultz-neocon faction.
Although George Bush and his cronies still occupy the White House,
the policies that are being carried out are coming from the
Brzezinski left CIA machine. Brzezinski has returned to public
prominence in recent months due to his role as top establishment
controller for the Obama campaign. But Brzezinski is not waiting for
the outcome of the November elections to take over key parts of the
US government. Brzezinski and his left CIA allies are already moving
to assert their strategy, even as the neocons and their
characteristic obsessions are moved to the back burner.


AMERICA YOU BETTER WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



From Saeed Ahmed

(CNN) -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won the first battle of the Super Tuesday showdown when Democratic Party voters in Indonesia -- where Obama spent four years of his childhood -- picked him over Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Ardie said that Obama's time in Indonesia was part of his appeal among expatriate voters in the southeast Asian country.

"I think it factored in to the extent they saw someone with strong international experience," he said. "But I don't think it was the primary factor."


GO HILLARY....McCAIN........ ANYONE BUT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love your post -- you are too funny!

I live in Ohio, but I have friends and relatives in Europe!

What they have told me, is that it's also non-stop media coverage. It seems Barack Obama's You Tube music video started the sensation. They even have "Dream Obama" Blogs.

I am at a loss for words, if voting for a president now entails who has the best You Tube Video!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Barack Obama, received 2.5 Delagates, and Hillary Clinton, received 2 Delagates. I'm pretty sure that was the count, because I laughed at the .5!

I found some info about Larry Sinclair which makes some sense out of something that makes no sense. I found this in a comments post to another slimy blog online:


Larry was in a mental institution during 1999.

Larry claims: "I was in the Chicago area from November 3, 1999 thru November 8, 1999 to attend the graduation of my God son from the Great Lakes Navy Training Center outside Chicago."

So, after looking up the graduation for the Great Lakes Navy Training Center for 1999, and nutjob Larry's God son must have been pretty disappointed that he missed his graduation. The 1999 Great Lakes Navy Training Center graduation took place between October 17-18, as detailed in the travel diaryby these fine folks who actually attended that graduation: www.crabcoll.com/journal/seasons.html.

Larry Sinclair lives at 600 W Superior St. #604 Duluth MN 55802. According to H.U.D. records which are also public, that address is a building with 154 units called Gateway Tower and is a complex for the elderly and disabled; a government subsidized home for the mentally ill and disabled.

I have seen this posted on other blogs.

This has been proven not to be true. Sinclair was not in a mental institution 1999. Sinclair provided documentation to popular web site bigheaddc.com, confirming he was in Chicago on the dates he indicated.

The Navy Training Center confirmed by phone, they did have a graduation during this date in November.

Why are all of these Obama supporter trying to discredit this man with slander?

I thought for sure that the day America got a black President it would be of his own accord, not that he rode in on the skirts of a black woman.

I thought the same. It interesting, for 22 years she has been bashing men on her show and made billion off doing it. But when it came time to support a women, she choice a black man. She a Coward! Powerful people like Oprah should not endorsing candidates for goverment office... it's abuse of power! She is entitled to vote for whom she wants, she used poor judgement!

"My family friend mentioned in September that he dated Obama at Columbia. It may add some credence to Sinclair's asserions."

Yeah, if your "friend" would actually come out (pardon the pun) and take a polygraph and/or offer some proof that his story is true.

SHEESH. What a bunch of morons...

"Dr. Ed Gelb, Former President of the American Polygraph Association was the Polygraph expert selected by Whitehouse.com. He has done over 30,000 polygraph examinations over his long career. There were two polygraph tests administered by Dr. Gelb on Friday. the first polygraph asked Mr. Sinclair on his sex claims. The second polygraph test asked Mr. Sinclair on the drug use claims. There was deception indicated in both tests."


Google Edward Gelb, he is not a doctor of anything. He's a fraud and it seems whitehouse.com

The media hasn't covered this because they require multiple sources to corroborate such a claim, and they don't have them. If this accusation seemed credible, I would consider it. However, it seems to me that this accuser is mentally ill and obsessed.

There should be other witnesses by now, but they haven't emerged and the accuser hasn't even tried to identify them. This was not a private interlude. There should have been witnesses at the club, the limo driver, at the hotels (twice!). Why hasn't anybody come forward to corroborate the story? There should have been nearly a dozen witnesses, but they haven't been able to identify even one? That is suspicious.

I think the accuser could actually pass the polygraph test because he BELIEVES he is telling the truth because he is delusional. This is very sad for everybody. I hope it doesn't derail the nomination.

I am wondering how you know he is delusional?

Proof, passing the second polygraph is proof for me. I have sent this information to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NBC, ABC, local papers demanding a public investigation. I ask the other fine people of Ohio to do the same. The truth has to come out!

I also heard this man Sinclair on the radio at rense.com. He sounded creditable to me.

Obama's stump speeches filled with platitudes, policy details: 'We're suspicious that someone who is talking really well is putting something over on us'

As Barack Obama's town hall meeting stretched into its second hour, it was clear the candidate wasn't anywhere close to finishing.

Obama had given an eight-minute answer to a question on health care, after which a few dozen people began leaving the outdoor plaza.

"Just relax," Obama told the remaining audience members. "Take your time."

For a speaker who is best known for his lofty and airy rhetoric, it's an ironic reality that Obama's public appearances very often turn into drawn-out dissertations.

In fact, read side-by-side with the other candidates' current stump speeches, the Obama script makes at least as many references to policy proposals as do theirs.

Kindly put, though, those ideas aren't the crowd-pleasing part of his presentation. Also, they come from a candidate so new to the national scene _ with just three full years under his belt in the Senate _ that opponents question if he knows whereof he speaks.

And that may be what helps to fuel the criticism from detractors that Obama speaks mostly in "platitudes."

"Is it a fair criticism to say they have a lot of platitudes in them? It's accurate," said David Zarefsky, a Northwestern University political professor who studies campaign rhetoric. "That's what stump speeches do. They're to capture an audience, to motivate people."

By reaching that height too well, he says, a stump speech can actually fail.

"There's a deep-seated cultural ambivalence we have about eloquence," Zarefsky said. "We seek it out, especially from leaders in times of crisis. On the other hand, we're suspicious that someone who is talking really well is putting something over on us."

Ambitious speakers in the past have found themselves vulnerable to the criticism. Robert F. Kennedy was questioned about who would actually pay for all of his noble plans. Gary Hart spoke grandly about "new ideas," only to be hit by a blunt rejoinder quoting a hamburger commercial: "Where's the beef?"

For his part, Obama has been criticized repeatedly as a speaker with more style than substance. Likely Republican nominee John McCain recently said that "to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas ... is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

He also said that Obama's speeches lack specifics.

But lately, at least, Obama's stump speech has been heavy with them.

In San Antonio, where Obama delivered a typical version of his current stump speech, his address veered at one point into a two-minute description of his health-care plan. He mentioned the age cut-off for children on their parents' plans, the estimated cost reduction of premiums for those with private health insurance and a time frame for implementation.

He outlined the high points of his energy plan with numbers and industry jargon, calling for strict caps on greenhouse emissions, increases in car fuel-efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon and creation of green-collar jobs, right down to those working on "cellulosic ethanol."

He ticked off the dollar figures he says working families and senior citizens could save with his economic plan, and promised to raise the minimum wage yearly to keep pace with inflation.

There are still mostly soft edges to Obama's stump speech, for instance his oblique promise within the economic plan to "strengthen Social Security and allow (seniors) to keep more money."

"We need service workers to get a decent wage and decent benefits," he said, without suggesting exactly how that might happen.

But compared with rival Democrat Hillary Clinton's current stump speech, that's not a stark contrast. Over the past few months, Clinton has begun to speak proportionally in more human terms about the hardships of working people.

She defines the campaign in terms of individuals, citing people with "mortgages they can't afford, medical bills that wiped out their life savings, tuition bills that cut short their children's dreams, who work the day shift and the night shift because they want the world for their children."

It's about scientists who want to do stem cell research, construction workers who want to rebuild the country and service members who wear the uniform of their country, she says.

"I see an America where college is affordable again for hard-working families and students," she says, and where "America is respected around the world again."

With President Bush out of office and John McCain defeated, she suggests, the country can work toward the America she envisions. She then alludes to her plans and policies _ which she has previously presented in policy speeches and laid out in detail on her Web site _ but doesn't generally go into the nuts and bolts.

These days, Clinton holds fewer of the lengthy question-and-answer sessions that once showcased her dexterity with public policy.

McCain now is in a different phase of his campaign from the Democrats. Since he began to lock down the Republican nomination and needed to travel to more states each day, he shifted to rallies with shortened versions of his speech _ sometimes only 10 minutes in length.

One thing he has not abandoned as he moves from primary candidate to presumptive nominee is his availability to the media. Almost without fail, McCain takes questions from reporters at every campaign event _ sometimes several times a day, and at length.

Interestingly, as the campaign continues, each candidate's rhetoric adapts to acknowledge that of the others _ almost as if evolving into a three-way conversation.

Clinton says that "speeches don't put food on the table," and Obama echoes the idea in short order with his own spin.

Clinton tells voters, "Your voices are the change we seek," an idea similar to Obama's "We are the change that we seek."

And both Democrats have sounded the strains of former Democratic candidate John Edwards.

Like McCain, Clinton and Obama frame the other party's ideas in their own words and then criticize them. McCain criticizes Obama as lacking in specifics; Obama responds with detail.

But Zarefsky notes that what candidates say on the stump doesn't represent the full context of the campaign conversation.

When critics suggest that Obama's speeches "don't put food on the table," they are arguably alluding not just to his rhetoric but to his resume.

Before he joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, Obama's time in public office consisted of eight years in the Illinois legislature.

"It's a reasonable inference," Zarefsky said. "This does connect up to the differing levels of experience of the candidates."

Clinton has found that talking directly about what she sees as Obama's lack of experience hasn't "gotten a lot of traction," said Zarefsky. "So this is a different twist to try to put on that same idea."

In other words, the criticism of Obama has inverted from the argument that he's "no action" to one that says he's "all talk."

Obama has clearly changed his stump speech to adjust to the new message, but says he still disagrees with the premise.

"Let's be clear, speeches don't put food on the table," he said recently. "But the only way that we're going to bring about change is if all of you get excited about change."


(Staff writers Jill Zuckman, Rick Pearson and Jason George contributed to this report.)


(c) 2008, Chicago Tribune.

Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Would you want this man to be The President Of The United States?


your job is to expose the truth to the american public, ugly as it may be. let the public decide whether its worthy or not.

this story is big-- THANK YOU for reporting it.


Obama is part of Trinity United Church of Christ, AKA: United Church of Christ gave a life time achievement award to LOUIS FARAKAHN. UCC has a racist Black agenda. FARAKAH is an anti-Semites - calling Judaism a gutter religion. NOW - can UCC really be believed to be Christians fellowship? They are simply appropriating Christian Church tax exempt status as a cover to operate legally in the U.S.; the substance of what they stand for and who they align themselves with is apparently racist. If you reverse the platform of this "church" and apply "white" where they state black - the agenda is clear they are racist by an objective standard. NOW Obama is part of that church - YOU CANT CHANGE THAT FACT.. OBAMA'S SISTER IS A MUSLIM, OBAMA WAS RAISED IN A MUDRASA, OBAMA was classified as a Muslim in grade school, WE don't know his religious affiliation when he attended Columbia University-I believe its being suppressed.

Obama worked with terrorist
Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence

JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barak Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2001.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for numerous bombings of government buildings.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.

The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."

It reportedly has worked on projects with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which supports open boarders and education for illegal aliens.

The AAAN in 2005 sent a letter to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in which it called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line.

The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.

According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands - some Palestinians claim over one million - Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.
Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.

The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom."

Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.

A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?"

That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.

Pro-PLO advocate held Obama fundraiser, describes Obama as 'sympathetic'

AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Khalidi's wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator during that period.

Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed directed WAFA. Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991.

During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.

He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.

While the Woods Fund's contribution to Khalidi's AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run in with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship.

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.

Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York's WABC Radio and Los Angeles' KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama.

"I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated.

Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."

Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians."

Asked about Obama's role funding the AAAN, Khalidi claimed he had "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago."

He terminated the call when petitioned further about his links with Obama.

Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer WND's questions about the AAAN's involvement with Obama.

Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to a list of WND questions sent by e-mail to the senator's press office.

Obama, American terrorist in same circles

Obama served on the board with Ayers, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the U.S. Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released on Sept. 11, 2001

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.

A $200 campaign contribution is listed on April 2, 2001 by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two taught appeared speaking together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who has also served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America." Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left 4 people dead.

Obama advisor wants talks with terrorists

The revelations about Obama's relationship with Khalidi follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.

Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.

To interview Aaron Klein, contact M. Sliwa Public Relations by e-mail, or call 973-272-2861 or 212-202-4453.

Please listen up! You Barack Cult fans put the cool aid down before our Country spins into total ruin.He is a drug,sex and Commie.use your commensense

I remember what happen with Jim Jones. This is starting the same way. Fightening!

Barack Hussein Obama is an African-American who has not shared the black American experience and was, by birth and blood, a Muslim for at least 27 years. His politics are rooted in Marx, socialism and Alinsky. He is a master at shaping his own mythology and completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief.



Whitehouse dot com

"Deception Indicated in Both of Larry Sinclair's Polygraph Tests by First Polygraph Expert"

2/24/2008 2:15 PM Dr. Ed Gelb, Former President of the American Polygraph Association was the Polygraph expert....the first polygraph asked Mr. Sinclair on his sex claims. The second polygraph test asked Mr. Sinclair on the drug use claims. There was deception indicated in both tests.

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Update on Larry Sinclair and the alleged failed polygraph tests

According to WhiteHouse.com Larry showed signs of deception in both tests concerning the sex and drug questions. I received an email from Larry and he is very aggrivated because WhiteHouse.com has kept him in the dark today. Acording to Larry it is a "suspicious situation". WhiteHouse.com delayed the initial results earlier today and promised the report of the tests would be made this afternoon. It's now 9:15 Eastern Time and no report has surfaced.

Also according to http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml Dr. Ed Gelb, the man who was selected by WhiteHouse.com to administer the tests never earned a doctoral degree from any accredited university.

Larry Sinclair told me that he will keep fighting.

More to come, this is just getting started...

“I am going to continue as I always have said,” wrote Larry Sinclair on his YouTube video page a few minutes ago. “I am not backing down.”

Sinclair, who has previously accused Barack Obama of a drug and sex scandal, also questions the validity of the WhiteHouse.com polygraph tests, which found deception in his answers. “People saying polygraphs were no good are now praising this one,” he added. “I am not backing off and I will continue to push forward and stand by my statements.”

This case is gettng more and more interesting by the day. Reality internet! The email exchanges between Mr. Parisi and Mr. Sinclair are enlightening and shocking!

Reverse Speech Stands by Its Sinclair Results

Whitehouse.com has announced a very limited and somewhat cryptic statement about the first portion of the polygraph examination test results for Larry Sinclair, the man who claimed he shared drugs and had gay sex with Barack Obama. Their official statement says "deception indicated." This rather nebulous remark throws no light on the actual 'deception' they are referring to during the four hour session. One wonders why WhiteHouse.com appears to be stringing this process out?

Reverse Speech.com, however, stands firmly by its reversal analysis of Larry Sinclair which indicate he is telling a true story. Reverse Speech found no 'deception' of any kind in Mr. Sinclair's accounting. Furthermore, Reverse Speech did find clearly conflicted and incongruent reversals in its evaluation of a number of campaign statements by Mr. Obama. Both Sinclair and Obama reversals can be heard here: http://reversespeech.com/obamadrugs.htm and http://www.reversespeech.com/obama.htm

It is extremely important to note that in its 24 year history, Reverse Speech has never once been proven to have been wrong or to have erred in determining a person's genuine truth spoken by that person's subconscious mind. Some of its successes can be seen here - http://www.reversespeech.com/trackrec.htm

The polygraph, on the other hand, has a vast history of documented failures of false positive and false negative results. In fact, Wikipedia states "A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance." See more here - http://rense.com/general80/poly.htm

ReverseSpeech.com also wonders why Barack Obama has not come forward to refute Sinclair's claims, and is now calling on him to do so. Reverse Speech would welcome the opportunity to analyze Mr. Obama speaking directly about the Sinclair allegations.

^top of page David John Oates
Founder and Developer of Reverse Speech Technologies
PO Box 678, Noarlunga Centre, SA 5168. Australia
phone: 08 83824372 - international: 61 8 83824372
Reverse Speech TM is a trademark owned by David John Oates.
All contents of the web site is Copyright © 2001 by David John Oates



Feb 24, 2008

RE: Pay it Forward donations to Salvation Army & Girls and Boys Club of Duluth

As I relayed to you in the middle of last week, I would appreciate it if you and the New center 6 team could present the enclosed checks to Heather Smith, with the Duluth Salvation Army and to the Director of the Girls and Boys Club of Duluth.

The enclosed checks for $5000.00 each were presented to me by Whitehouse.com for giving them exclusive rights to video and broadcast of an event in Los Angeles. As part of said deal, I wanted part of payment made payable to the two above listed Duluth charities to live up to a promise I had made in December 2007 to a Duluth resident of helped me in a time in need without even knowing me. This resident asked for nothing in return other than that I some day “pay it forward.”

I promised this Duluth resident that I would some day pay forward the same act of kindness that they should me when I was going through a difficult time medically, after only having recently relocated to Duluth. Not only was I new to Duluth, it was the week between Christmas and New Years when just about every business was closed or involved in holiday programs.

I appreciate this local residents coming out on a night that was bitterly cold, we were having high winds and blowing snow and the ice on the streets was bad as well. But this act of kindness by this Duluth resident showed me that the people of Duluth do care about their neighbors.

It is in that spirit of giving that was shown to me that I ask you to present the enclosed checks to Duluth Salvation Army and the Girls and Boys Club of Duluth in the amount of $5000.00 each with the sincere hope that others will PAY IT FORWARD every chance they get.

Thank you,

Larry Sinclair

WhiteHouse.com entered into an agreement to pay Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who claims he used drugs and had a sexual encounter with Sen. Barack Obama in 1999, a certain amount of money before Sinclair agreed to take a polygraph for the site, but now the site has reneged on the deal. This new twist is revealed within an e-mail sent on Tuesday from WhiteHouse.com founder Dan Parisi to Sinclair, which refers to Big Head DC’s Monday interview with Sinclair.

“I saw this interview this morning and posted your response in regards to another polygraph test,” Parisi writes in the e-mail. “It shows that you are doing another polygraph with results in this afternoon in violation of our agreement. I have instructed bank to stop payment on the $20,000 check this morning. The $10,000 in checks going to the charities are not effected (sic) and will be paid.”

Sinclair has vowed to take criminal action against Parisi, if the check is not honored.

Several claims WhiteHouse.com has made regarding the posting of the Sinclair polygraph, which was administered by controversial polygraph expert Ed Gelb, have not been honored to date. For instance, videos were supposed to be posted showing the administration of the test, but the site now claims the “incident needs to be laid to rest,” and plans to post the videos have apparently been scrapped.

Refer to:



Larry Sinclair was directed not to take a polygraph for 4 weeks? Everyday, for those of us who are following this story, this is sounding like conspiracy theory.

Sound like, if the allegation are true, the Obama campaign just doesn’t want Sinclair to take another polygraph BEFORE Hillary might be forced to drop out.

And that makes PERFECT SENSE! The GOP have been backing Obama from the very beginning… Karl Rove sent a PUBLIC MEMO to the Obama campaign telling them how to win against Hillary, and God KNOWS what he’s done for them and with them behind the scenes. Plus, David(back stabing)Axelrod,former Bill Clinton campaign advisor, knows the Clinton Campaign book.

The entire plan was to torpedo the man, pull the rug out from Obama with Sinclair as their tool AFTER HILLARY WAS DEFEATED. Then McCain sweeps to the Presidency IN DEFAULT.

They never meant for Sinclair to go public before September, and NOW they are scrambling to pull their second choice spoiler out of the woodwork, NADER.

The timing couldn’t be more highly suspect.

The truth is going to come out about all of this, about Obama, the tryst with Sinclair, the Obama campaign’s involvement with WhiteHouse.com, Rove’s involvement, and blow up in their faces in the end.

It’s about time. Rove only left the White House so he could pilot the Titanic Obama campaign without the Press Corps following every move.

Today, as Axelrod basks in his profession’s highest glory — shaping a historical presidential campaign — he is experiencing one of its nastiest turns: in a tiny and ideologically promiscuous world, you often need to go to war with your friends. (If Obama hadn’t run, Axelrod says, he would have sat out this presidential race, and he says he told all of his other former clients that early on; he hasn’t had much interaction with them since.) There is Dodd, and there is Edwards, but perhaps most poignantly, there is Hillary Clinton. It’s a matter of epilepsy. David and Susan Axelrod have three children in their late teens and early 20s. Their eldest, Lauren, has developmental disabilities associated with chronic epileptic seizures and now lives in a group home in Chicago. But for years her illness required enough of her parents’ time that it kept Susan Axelrod out of the work force and kept David from moving to Little Rock during the 1992 presidential campaign. Susan and two other mothers of children with epilepsy started a foundation, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE), which Susan runs, to promote research and raise funds for a cure. Because of David’s political work, they have had political celebrities do fund-raisers: Bill Clinton, Tim Russert, Obama. But few have done as much for the foundation as Hillary Clinton.

It was January 1999, President Clinton’s impeachment trial was just beginning in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the foundation’s fund-raiser in Chicago. Despite all the fuss back in Washington, Clinton kept the appointment. She spent hours that day in the epilepsy ward at Rush Presbyterian hospital, visiting children hooked up to machines by electrodes so that doctors might diagram their seizure activity and decide which portion of the brain to remove. At the hospital, a local reporter pressed her about the trial in Washington, asked her about that woman. At the organization’s reception at the Drake Hotel that evening, Clinton stood backstage looking over her remarks, figuring out where to insert anecdotes about the kids. “She couldn’t stop talking about what she had seen,” Susan Axelrod recalled. Later, at Hillary Clinton’s behest, the National Institutes of Health convened a conference on finding a cure for epilepsy. Susan Axelrod told me it was “one of the most important things anyone has done for epilepsy.” And this is how politics works: David Axelrod is now dedicated to derailing this woman’s career.



Now this is a very interesting article. Just like a man! I am so tired of all the neworks favoring Mr. Obama. This race has been totally sexist! Is there no loyality in America any more?

Obama's church ORIGINAL 12 "Black Values System". In the 12
statements below, if you replace the word "Black" with "White" 1.
Commitment to God (...become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for
Black freedom...) 2. Commitment to the Black Community 3.
Commitment to the Black Family 4. Dedication to the Pursuit of
Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence 6.
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic 7. Commitment to
Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of
"Middleclassness" (note: read the explanatio*** 9. Pledge to make
the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the
Black Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of
Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black
Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who
espouse and embrace the Black Value System 12. Personal commitment
to embracement of the Black Value System

Obama's church 12 "Black Values System". In the 12 statements below,
if you replace the word "Black" with "White" - sounds like Black
KKK 1. Commitment to God (...become Black Christian Activists,
soldiers for Black freedom...) 2. Commitment to the Black
Community 3. Commitment to the Black Family 4. Dedication to
the Pursuit of Education 5. Dedication to the Pursuit of
Excellence 6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic 7. Commitment
to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit
of "Middleclassness" (note: read the explanatio*** 9. Pledge to
make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to
the Black Community 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of
Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black
Institutions 11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who
espouse and embrace the Black Value System 12. Personal commitment
to embracement of the Black Value System.

Farrakhan sings Obama's praises............... In his first major
public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis
Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the
"hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the
better. ADVERTISEMENT Nursing Degrees Online--The College
Network The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd
of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never
outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour
speech praising the Illinois senator. "This young ma***s the hope
of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he
said. "This young mass capturing audiences of black and brown and
red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at
the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

February 05
Email to Obama adviser re: youtube video
Axelrod's need to contact me forthwith‏
From: Larry Sinclair (larysinclair0926@hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 2/04/08 11:43 PM
To: info@akpmedia.com

This message is for David Axelrod. My name is Larry Sinclair. Attempts to leave messages for you with the Obama headquarters have not gone well.

I have been informed that you personally have stated the claims in my youtube video are untrue. I also understand that you personally in your capacity with the Obama camp has stated the Obama camp is conducting an investigation into me and my associates.

I have contacted legal counsel and have asked that civile litigation be filed forthwith against you and the Obama camp for conducting investigations in an attempt to prevent my truthful allegations against your candidate from becoming public and a national scale. I am also asking counsel to take action to determine if you and or the Obama camp have violated any federal or state laws in the funding of your invesstigation and/or attempts to keep the truth out of the election process.

Understand all you have to do is ask me about me, because I have been 100% open and honest about my life and every aspect of it.

I am sick of threats being sent by Obama staff and supporters, I am sick of Obama bloggers using edited versions of my video to slam other candidates who have nothing to do with me or my video.

I have notified the DNC that I intend to take action against them as well for ignoring complaint filed by me with them regarding your statements about the purpose for the posting of my video.

Understand you do not know me, and I assure you I will stand my ground on this, and I will defend myself against the false claims being made against me by you, Obama's camp, paid or unpaid staffers, and Mr. Obama personally if I find him to have knowledge of your actions.

I suggest you address this matter because I assure you it will not be going away


I am making this statement regarding the claims recently made against me and attributted to the WASHINGTON POST.


The claims that I have an “extensive record of drug convictions” is in fact completely false and according to both the national new desk and city desk at the Washington Post has never been reported by anyone employed at this newspaper.


The claims made that I “have been investigated eight times over the past 25 years for trying to secure money through “black male” and two of those involving politicians in IL and IN” also is in fact false and according to the Washington Post has never been reported by anyone employed at this newspaper.


Dan Parisi of Whitehouse dot com has decided to ignore the conditions and agreement we entered into regarding the polygraph examination. Mr. Parisis has failed to provide the identity and contact information on the second Expert and in doing so has never obtained any agreement from me for using this individual.

Mr. Parisi failed to provide information that I recently received from emails from people I do not even know, which shows Dr. Edward Ira Gelb has in fact misrepresented his own credentials before a case filed in front of the US Supreme Court. (attached below)


www.antipolygraph.com/articles/article-036.shtml Gelb has
publicly claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree in psychology since at least
1996. I***997, he represented himself as a Ph.D. to the highest court
in the land -- the United States Supreme Court -- as a co-signer of
the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v.
Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D." No, the "LaSalle
University" that awarded Gelb his "doctorate" turns out to be a
defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Mandeville, Louisiana that was
owned and operated by one Thomas James Kirk, A.K.A. Thomas McPherson.
I***996, LaSalle was raided by the FBI, and i***997 Kirk pled guilty
to federal fraud charges. (For more on the bogus LaSalle
University, Mr. Edward I. Gelb is no Ph.D., and he should stop
masquerading as such.

In addition Mr. Parisi and his assistant refused to inform or allow me to be present during their meetings with Dr. Gelb in his office before, during and after the exams. Mr. Parisi and his assistant spent approximately two hours behind closed doors with Dr. Gelb before I was even introduced to him. During the examination process Dr. Gelb printed something off his computer and left the room telling me he would be back in five, only to return some 30 to 45 minutes later with Parisi’s assistant and an associate of Dr. Gelbs and then asked me to step out side for another 20 minutes before calling me back in to proceed with the exam.


Tonight (2-24-08) after Mr. Parisi refused to respond to my emails I posted on Whitehouse dot com the fact that Parisi this afternoon claimed he had not sent me copy of the results because he had not received them. Shortly after making that statement this afternoon Parisi’s assistant called saying they would fax the results in 15 minute, needless to say that never happened. Later Parisi claimed he had only then received a handwritten report faxed this date to him from Dr. Gelb and that he would wait to fax me the typed report.

If Mr. Parisi fails to comply with our agreement by Monday 2-25-08 I will post all email communications with him concerning this matter and which clearly state the conditions for this arrangement. These emails will clearly show Mr. Parisi did not follow our agreement and I will consider at that time what course of action should be taken. It is only natural that I would become suspicious of Mr. Parisi after finding out he has misrepresented this expert, he has claimed I was examined by two (2) experts of which I agreed and yet I only met one and still have not been given the contact information to this date on the second.

It needs to be made perfectly clear that I have from the very beginning demand all of this be done openly and with credible, unbiased, and apolitical individuals. These facts about Dr. Gelb make it hard for me to believe that Mr. Parisi can claim this person is unbiased and credible when he has misrepresented himself before the highest court in this Country.

Mr. Parisi’s claims that I approved both experts is untrue because I was never given this person whole name or any contact information on him/her. I was simply told Gordo something in Salt Lake City.

Thank you,

Larry Sinclair


Polygraph Operator "Dr." Edward I. Gelb Exposed as a Phony Ph.D.
Past President of the American Polygraph Association Obtained Degree from an Unaccredited Diploma Mill
by George W. Maschke
16 June 2003
Why would one of the most prominent polygraph operators in America falsely pass himself off as a Ph.D.? Edward I. Gelb of Los Angeles isn't saying.

Since 1969, after completing training at the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego, Gelb claims to have conducted in excess of 30,000 polygraph examinations. Along with attorney F. Lee Bailey, Gelb appeared on a nationally syndicated television program called "Lie Detector." Gelb has been interviewed about polygraph matters on such national television programs as "Entertainment Tonight," "Geraldo Rivera Live," "CNN Newstand," and CNN's "Larry King Live" show. His high profile clients include O.J. Simpson and John and Patsy Ramsey (parents of JonBenet Ramsey, whose murder remains unsolved). Gelb is a past president, executive director, and chairman of the board of the American Polygraph Association and in 1998 earned the association's Leonarde Keeler Award "for long and distinguished service to the polygraph profession."

Gelb has publicly claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree in psychology since at least 1996. In 1997, he represented himself as a Ph.D. to the highest court in the land -- the United States Supreme Court -- as a co-signer of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists' amicus brief in U.S. v. Scheffer, where he is listed as "Ed Gelb, Ph.D."

But compelling evidence pieced together by discussants on the AntiPolygraph.org message board indicates that Gelb never earned a doctoral degree from any accredited university. The comprehensive Dissertation Abstracts database (the definitive worldwide collection of doctoral dissertations including over 1.6 million records dating back to 1861) includes no doctoral dissertation by an Edward Gelb.

Gelb did not return phone phone calls and e-mail seeking clarification regarding his educational background. However, AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a copy of Gelb's resume (80 kb PDF) that was included in court documents filed in a civil suit in 2002. Writing about himself in the third person, here is what Gelb says about his educational background: "Dr. Gelb was educated at the University of Southern California, LaSalle University and U.C.L.A.. He has been awarded a bachelor's degree in political science, a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in psychology."

Gelb doesn't state where or when he earned which degree. Perhaps Gelb would like us to infer that he listed the universities in the same order that he listed his degrees and that he earned a bachelor's degree at USC, a master's degree at LaSalle, and a doctorate at UCLA. But this is certainly not the case. If Gelb had earned his Ph.D. at UCLA (or USC), his dissertation would surely be included in the Dissertation Abstracts database. That leaves LaSalle University. There is a legitimate institution of higher learning called LaSalle University in Philadelphia, but it awarded its first Ph.D. degree of any kind in 2002, years after Gelb began putting the letters "Ph.D." after his name. Ed Gelb didn't earn a doctoral degree there.

No, the "LaSalle University" that awarded Gelb his "doctorate" turns out to be a defunct, unaccredited diploma mill in Mandeville, Louisiana that was owned and operated by one Thomas James Kirk, A.K.A. Thomas McPherson. In 1996, LaSalle was raided by the FBI, and in 1997 Kirk pled guilty to federal fraud charges. (For more on the bogus LaSalle University, see "The swim 'doctor': Credentials of nutrition adviser to U.S. women's team questioned," by Danny Robbins and Margaret Jamison, Houston Chronicle, 7 September 2000 and "Chiropractors with False credentials and diplomas" on ChiroWatch.com.)

Mr. Edward I. Gelb is no Ph.D., and he should stop masquerading as such.