Obama's Gay Sex and Drug Abuse: Dirty Politics or the Truth?

It's the height of the presidential campaign. Hillary's looking like she's going down and suddenly a man accuses Obama of having a gay tryst with him and smoking crack. What's going on?

Although I do believe the shadow government likes our leaders corrupt and vulnerable, the timing of this revelation is somewhat suspect. Now I wouldn't be completely surprised if the allegations were true, given the caliber of leaders that we have been cursed with recently, but it does give me pause.

Obama Sleaze

reply to post by SevenThunders


I don't believe it, but I think it is creating enough noise and will be promoted by those who will connect the claim of crack to a racial issue and the gay to liberal, that Obama should respond. Here's the problem:

1. I believe someone is paying Larry Sinclair a lot to do this, threatening him, or both. Probably just #1.

2. Whitehouse.com is no bastion of credibility, more like a bastion of sleaze. Their offer, which Larry Sinclair has agreed to contractually, prevents him from taking another lie detector test anywhere. How convenient. Why should we believe theirs, irrespective of the fact that there are numerous ways to beat your standard, non-MRI type lie detector test?

3. The timing is almost Rovian in its potential for damage. This whole thing could have been created using a lot of resources, including legal, monetary (think bribes, blackmail, etc.), investigative (when would it be hard for him to have proof to the contrary) and planning. This will take time to clear up, and regardless of whether or not it is a complete fabrication, involving whitehouse.com or not, this needs to end quickly.

4. The best way to respond to this issue is to recognize early that it could have legs and cut it off immediately. Responding in some decisive way as soon as possible would be best. Bury the valid response on some back page of the web and move on to the issues.

Based on the forces against him, I only hope that he does respond quickly and decisively.

Is nothing more than dirty politics and sad for the people that fall for it, I guess propaganda is good as long as it have, crack and gay sex it brings the attention.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by marg6043]

What's up with the link provided?

Also, seeing how low Hillary is willing to go, say and do anything, I would not put these rumors beyond her; nor would I put it beyond some anti-Obama voters.

reply to post by lifestudent


I could not agree with you more "Lifestudent". This smacks of Rovian politics THROUGH AND THROUGH..., using highly charged terms like "crack" mixed in with gay sex, to make Obama seem like some type of male crack whore.

Obama needs to respond so his campaign does not get diverted. There are holes throughout the Sinclair story which need to be highlighted.

The rumour mill is fast and furious, First they say Obama is muslim, that gets refuted, so now it's the old" I did crack with Obama and had gay sex with him line."

WOW!

Election 2008 has my head spinning. I thought the last two elections were bad, this one has them both beat in terms of dirty tricks and even suspected vote fraud. Frankly I think all the major candidates are crooked or at best tools of foreign based globalists. Perhaps Ron Paul is the exception, but he has been effectively marginalized.

So among the major candidates I have these lovely choices:

Hillary:
Takes money from China, drug dealers and con men. Has crooked land deals, lesbian love affairs and maybe even a trail of dead bodies.

Obama:
Possibly homosexual tryst, drug abuser, goes to a black supremecist church, likes Marxist liberation theology, has his own crooked land and stock deals to worry about.

McCain:
Possibly certifiably insane with fits of rage. May launch WWIII if he has a bad hair day. Warmonger. Believes in open borders. Collaborated with the Vietnamese in POW camps and plied with whores and other unsavory benefits.

Huckabee:
Made lots of campaign cash disappear. Attempted to suppress investigations into his ethics. Intervened to release a convicted murderer. Has close ties to the CFR.

I won't be voting for any of these clowns thank you very much.

Hmmm. The first thing that popped into my head upon reading this is, This is a really good way to diffuse the potential of that whole Huma-Hillary rumor (which may or may not be true as well).

reply to post by HarlemHottie


I think we could recruit better candidates by random lots from people chosen off the streets. Is the honest politician now an oxymoron? I don't trust anyone who runs his campaign like he or she is the next messiah. The media of course is completely useless. They don't cover any of the real backgrounds on our precious candidates. What I'd like to see is a process that disqualifies candidates based on their ethical violations. Weed out the bad apples and maybe we will get someone with some common sense and at least a vague duty towards the American people.

Well what I see happening more and more in this age of surveillance, technology and connections to the dis-information engine. Who ever has or has had that kind of power could use it. Clinton's have had it and most likely still know plenty of people they can call in favors comshaw this for that etc. I think the US Government is eventually going to get us not knowing which way is up or down.

I know it's already like that in some ways but when I think it will get bad enough where many will contemplate whether living here is really worth the mundane existence it will ultimately cultivate


- Con

...ok, this is on worldnetdaily, so i'm going to just say that it's probably outright propaganda. WND isn't known for its journalistic integrity and it's a very partisan site.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...ok, this is on worldnetdaily, so i'm going to just say that it's probably outright propaganda. WND isn't known for its journalistic integrity and it's a very partisan site.

They report on a lot of stuff the mainstream media just ignores. I happen to like them. I can see why an atheist would hate them however. I believe their chief editor is an unapologetic christian. Come to think of it, I do notice that the mainstream media isn't touching this with a ten foot pole. Perhaps it's true then. Any story nbc, cbs abc, fox etc. won't touch should probably be noted.

All joking aside (and I've been making light of this in other threads) this could be a serious test.

I see two senarios that work for me 100%:

#1. The story is completely false. Obama totally refutes it because it is false, and dismisses the whole thing as a fabrication. He spends no further time on the issue. I am thinking this is actually what is going to happen.

#2. The story is absolutely true. Obama just admits he's bisexual, he cheated on his wife, but that was years ago. He gets a bit angry at the press for dragging it up. Whose business is it anyway? Move on!

Either of those work for me.

The third senario is not workable for me: The story is true, but Obama tries to lie his way out of it. That would flip me hard away from Obama. I've already been there with Clinton. I will be irate if Obama tries to pull that! His campaign is about trust and hope!

I have to confess, I am a big supporter of Obama. He is definitely my first choice. Clinton is my last choice. (I will vote for McCain before Clinton!) I've been thinking about this story all day, and beginning to feel like I am at some stupid crossroad.

I don't care about Obama's sexual proclivities, believe me! But I do care if he lies convincingly. That is what turned me off of Clinton and Bush, and Obama's honesty is what I respect most, beyond any political policies he may advocate.

I want a candidate that tells me the truth. I don't care about anything else.

Edit: I don't have any illusion that Obama distorts the truth all the time. I am not that naive. But I can't vote for any candidate that manipulates my trust by telling a complete lie (such as putting his entire prestige and credibility on the line with a "I did not have sex with that guy" type of comment.) It is a complete vote killer for me, and I will be upset if that occurs. Maybe it doesn't have to. The story might actually be false. We will see.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
They report on a lot of stuff the mainstream media just ignores.

like outright falsehoods...

I happen to like them.

well, that's sad because they really aren't journalistic...

I can see why an atheist would hate them however.

i don't hate them, i just don't think they're a reliable news source

I believe their chief editor is an unapologetic christian.

if by "unapologetic christian" you mean outright bigot who justifies it with christianity, i'll agree with you.

seriously, some people need to stop using jesus as an excuse for being a narrow minded bigot

Come to think of it, I do notice that the mainstream media isn't touching this with a ten foot pole. Perhaps it's true then. Any story nbc, cbs abc, fox etc. won't touch should probably be noted.

maybe they aren't touching it because it's entirely unreliable...
that's what i'd note, the fear of being sued for defamation...

Originally posted by Buck Division

...The story is completely false.


...The story is true, but Obama tries to lie his way out of it.

I agree with your comments Buck. My greatest worry is that your option 1 and 3 (quoted above) are indistinguishable unless there is available evidence. Without the stained dress Clinton would've been able to lie his way out of it and the sad thing is I might have believed him.

I think at this point all you can do is "consider the source" and move on with the assumption that if there was anything AT ALL to this story SOMEONE else would've picked it up. Even Matt Drudge has avoided this one. That tells me it's about as solid as kitten fart.

reply to post by SKMDC1

All you can do is "consider the source" and move on with the assumption that if there was anything AT ALL to this story SOMEONE else would've picked it up.

Thanks SK. This is really the bottom line, and I am taking your advice.

I want to say one more thing before I leave this topic. I've become increasingly suspicious that this guy Sinclair is actually suffering from a legitimate type of psychosis -- a delusion disorder known as erotomania.

I researched this disorder, and he perfectly fits the profile for someone suffering from this delusion. Taking what you say (i.e. "consider the source") and considering this real-world phenomenon of erotomania, and finally applying Occam's razor: this incident never happened.

So, if it is all a delusion by a poor and mentally-ill man, it would just be cruel and perverse to keep this guy Sinclair in the spotlight. He needs help, not more attention.

I've reached total closure unless something dramatic happens.

See you on some other thread. Bye!

PS Edit: (From Wikipedia) The assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. was reported to have been driven by an erotomanic delusion that the death of the president would cause actress Jodie Foster to publicly declare her love for Hinckley.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Buck Division]

surprise, surprise, the guy was being deceitful

here's a follow up

Obama handled this exactly the right way; he ignored the allegation.

These type of allegations pop up in every election. If a candidate spends his time and energy refuting false allegations, he will be marginalized as a candidate.

And in the end, the only thing people will remember is Obama=sex+drugs.