Paul Cameron is insinuating that Obama's backing of same sex marriage is because he might be gay.
He also said "the long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try," he continued with, "They will not rest until every one of our children at least gets to try, has the opportunity and maybe is forced to at least once experience homosexual acts."
Unbelievable. Do normal people really feel this way?
Paul Cameron is a professional liar and propagandist.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i … ul-cameron
This doesn't seem to be the agenda of the homosexual movement, but it appears to be the agenda of the catholic church. Look at all the young boys who experienced homosexuality, at least once, through the church.
"That's a really classless statement - and if there were an ounce of truth to it, it would in fact be true of GAY priests - hence the responsibility of the homosexuals after all."
I put that in quotes to show that it's a completely asinine statement, and really getitrite, makes about as much sense as your statement above.
And we wonder why we can't every discuss anything without it degenerating into a test to see who can throw the hardest insults in the most literate way.
It happens MORE in the liberal run public schools than the Church.
But your hate is clearly genuine.
So does that make it ok, just because the liberals do it too. Your reasoning is absurd.
No That does not make it OK. I am just sick of people bashing the Church because of a few perverts and stupid bishops when it happens other places as well. The people who bring this up are really hating at the church for not approving of their own favorite sin(s). They say that people should quit the church because of what came out in 2005. By that reasoning, the same would apply to public schools. But they don't see it that way.
Why not? According to some people, he's already the Anti-Christ and Hitler incarnate.
When did it become fashionable to debate the arguments of trolls?
No, most people don't feel that way, and it seems a bit extreme. It does seem very encouraged in our society, and if you watched television, its added into every show and family now, and if it was a true reflection we would have a huge number of homosexuals in the world compared to what there actually are. Not sure what the need is for that, other than to keep putting it out there, when its obviously so over done, and not normal either.
It doesn't make sense to insinuate that the President is gay...if he was, then he would be outright. He obviously is not. He isn't with most Americans on the issue, but I don't think he is gay.
Well as for the numbers of gay people, it depends on here you are, in San Francisco the number is higher than 15% Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle and many other cities have 12+ percent.
As for Obama not being with the majority on this issue that is simply incorrect.
According to Gallup 53% support gay marriage 5% undecided.
According to Washington Post survey 52% a approve
Public Religion Research Institute found 52% approve
But what is more interesting is that Wall Street Journal found only 40% opposed it.
All from this year.
At least 32 States have voted. Those polls are wrong.
Al those polls recurrent and conducted by impartial bodies, it's not enough to just say they are wrong, you have no evidence what so ever.
Evidence is not only unneeded, but undesirable for some people's purposes.
My evidence is the 32 States that have defeated it. Trump that.
Have you ever checked into what percentage of the population has bothered to vote on these referendums? It is not the majority.
I disagree with Obama, I don't think states should be allowed to deny any citizens civil rights.
What percentage voted in 2008? It matters not, it's who won.
But it is not up to the people to decide who is allowed to have civil rights, it should be ingrained.
This argument is ridiculous the fact that in the past these votes have been defeated in some of the states in no way proves that most Americans are against gay marriage, consistent polling that shows most American support it do prove that Americans support it, primarily because they are current.
These same polls said Kerry was gonna win too. Polls do not matter, votes count.
And, that's a rights violation.
A person has a right to withhold that vote, for whatever reason. It doesn't take away their citizenship.
In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court said in a ruling that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man", fundamental to our very existence and survival”. The precedent in US case law has therefore been set.
The votes did not happen this year therefore your information is outdated and since opinion on this issue is changing so quickly your evidence is useless.
At least three presidents have lost the popular vote yet were elected. Popular opinion does not always equal law. Especially in a Republic... especially when the numbers are more than 50 percent in favor and less than 60 percent... especially when popular opinion challenges standing law.
The law in 32 states trumps popular opinion. If it polls so well, why has it lost every vote?
Well it has been legalized in 6 states but that is not the point, every recent poll conducted has found that same sex marriage is favored and they are most recent.
The most recent "poll" was in North Carolina. That "poll" counted. You lost again.
Are we talking about North Carolina or America? very different.
Its been legalized by courts that do NOT follow the law. They just make stuff up.
The law starts with the Constitution. The 14th amendment prevents laws from being passed that provide for unequal rights. All of those laws and state amendments preventing gay couples from getting married will get overturned.
Who is Paul Cameron? A scumbag I see from livelonger's comment and link.
""The American Psychological Association (APA) dropped Cameron from its membership on December 2, 1983 for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists." "
Normal people, yes, do see the agenda unfolding like that. We can't miss it, really. Anyone who keeps even halfway up with the goings on of that movement can see the intent. When I say the agenda, I don't mean the homosexuals who actually recognize the difference and struggle with their temptations; I mean the ones who simply don't give a care for common decency and are pushing America (yes, including kids!) into legally condoning the carp. I've said time after time that there are people who've been in, or been drawn into, the homosexual lifestyle but who do not approve of the homosexual agenda. That's a fact, one ignored by the liberal agenda. Heck, I'm sure those people have a fear of speaking out; they'd get bullied by the liberal activists for sure. That has actually happened before right here on this site; a former practicing homosexual tried to be a witness to the fact that people can get help for their affliction/habit, but the hubber was insulted and basically run off the board.
And there's no valid reason for Obama to push for gay "rights" unless, yes, he has homosexual habits OR of course he's just fishing for votes in hopes of having another four years to push the liberal agenda. Either one, or both, is the only logical explanation for his advocacy of something that's clearly not a civil rights issue and is tantamount to treason against America's foundation.
And whatever his "reason", it's not an excuse. There are reasons for almost anything; but not valid excuses.
Are there many normal people in your neck 'o the woods Brenda?
Are you slippin, Ron?
I figured by now you'd have posted a pic of Obama in pink speedos or whatever. Ya know, since he's "come out" publicly on this issue. No surprise there, really. Apparently he is; or else it just proves he'll do most anything for votes.
*Sighs* I almost shudder to ask this question because I'm actually scared I might get an actual answer...
I support abortion rights Brenda. I am neither running for office nor would I ever get an abortion myself. Can you think of any fathomable reason why such a circumstance would occur and if so can you draw any parallels?
Because you don't take the value of human life seriously nor do you believe in laws protecting the rights of the helpless. That should answer your question. That's crystal clear. And I'm not gonna debate it further.
Do you seriously believe that about me Brenda? Honestly? Just because I have a different opinion than you?
You can choose not to debate it if you like but I know better... and so do you. You would just invalidate your own argument if you chose to answer honestly and you know it.
There's an old 2008 movie called "The Memory Keeper's Daughter". Would possibly be a good one for you to watch. I say "possibly" because you might already be immune to sympathizing with the plight of the unborn and the helpless and imperfect, I dunno....but it's a very compelling movie about life and the value of all human life.
Whenever I think you've written something so cruel and thoughtless that you couldn't possibly outdo yourself, you tap out yet another post and press the submit button.
A stance for abortion is what's "cruel and thoughtless", livelonger.
And that's the issue that was addressed in my post.
Just when I thought you might stop falsely accusing and attacking pro-lifers and Christians, there you go again swooping in and doing just that, and pressing the submit button.
I will absolutely watch it Brenda... On one condition... You too have to watch a movie... It's really short and will let you in on my experiences in sympathizing with the plight of the helpless and imperfect.
It worked fine for me. Maybe it's time to trade in your Commodore 64.
It plays perfectly for me... I watch it pretty regularly.
Anyway... since I assume that you either can't see the movie... don't want to see the movie... or do not wish to comment on the movie then I will go on with my conversation... whether or not you wish me to or not.
The video showed clips of the most precious child in the world that now resides in a place that neither you nor I will likely ever see. I love him to distraction. I spent 99 days at his bedside before I ever brought him home... I then spent almost four years devoting myself to every thing i could think of to keep him alive and happy. I think the question of my understanding of the value of human life is pretty much moot. I also think the question of my ability to sympathize with the imperfect and helpless is also moot. I would also like to point out... just in case you missed it that I started my current pregnancy with two children and yet now only talk about one. The other one is still with me but will not be born alive. Now that we've discussed my qualifications as a heartless uncaring baby-killer you now know why I would never choose to have an abortion for myself.
Now... lets talk about the 7 year old boy who watched his brother die in front of him. That was my second oldest... He still has nightmares about it at 13. He knows if he just tried harder he could have saved him. Let's talk about the other two children who were neglected because Kaine required ALL of the attention of the parents and the around the clock nurses that invaded the home... Let's talk about how they couldn't leave their room if they had the sniffles or the baths they had to take when they walked in the door or the fact that their friends couldn't come over and play like normal. Then we will talk about the marriage that completely fell apart under the stress of no privacy... no time for each other... and constant blame and guilt over Kaine. Then we can talk about what medical bills with 7 digits really look like.
When we are all done with that we can talk about how it feels to give the okay to stop doing CPR after watching a team work on your child for 2 hours. How it feels to hear the doctor pronounce time of death as you are rocking your dead toddler. How it feels to carry his coffin.
And when we are done with all that... you can decide if you are qualified to force another human being to endure all of that.
So back to my point... Knowing that I would never have an abortion why would I support abortion rights? Because I have empathy for a choice... even if i would never make it. Maybe... just maybe... Obama has empathy for a situation that he personally will never be involved in. You don't have to be in a situation to understand it or feel for the people involved. And you don't have to walk the same path to understand what it is like for others that do. You just have to have the ability to at least try to put yourself in their shoes just for a minute.
A gift that from what I've seen you have a SPECTACULAR lack of.
You've shared a lot here, and I'm sad to hear that you've had such sorrow and difficulties; I never like it when anyone suffers. Anyone. But especially children.
I'm not going to share my own difficulties nor my friends'/family's difficulties here. There's nothing wrong with you having done so, but I choose not to. I'll just say that you don't know and leave it at that. There are thousands upon thousands of people with experiences similar. I'm sure you could sympathize with them, and empathize with some of them, without experiencing their personal stories, but indeed so can I, and you don't know everyone else's story either.
I can see how you'd value your children's lives, no matter if the time was short. I'm saying that same thing, except that I'm saying is that I value ALL lives, no matter if the child is mine or someone else's and no matter how short or how difficult for them and/or the parents. Your children's lives are precious to me; they're precious to God! And so are ALL children's lives, no matter how short. Yes, even the lives of those children whose parents want the option of the "choice" to end their lives...
You see, my sympathy is for those children first and foremost. I understand that the parents might have to go through sorrow and pain and problems, but that doesn't negate the right of the child to a basic thing called Life, period. I don't have empathy for a "choice", except in unusual cases like some cases of rape, and in situations where there HAS to be a choice made between the life of the mother and the life of the child (and then that's up to the parents w/advice from the medical doctor, etc.; and that circumstance is assumably rare).
In the so-called abortion dilemma, resolving the issue would mean that the fundamental right of the child would have to supercede the "right" of the adult. That's an impossible scenario and cannot happen, actually, if the adult is given the "choice"! Because the child isn't capable of making any choice, and the adult is by nature responsible for defending the child's rights and honoring the sanctity of life; the very definition and basis of abortion conflicts fundamentally with the basic right to Life, period; the "right" of the parent definitively and diametrically infringes upon the innate right of the child to have the chance to Live. So there is no choice if one believes in the sanctity of life.
I believe that if a person would never choose something for themselves nor their own children, then they should never advocate for the right of someone else to choose it. Right and wrong don't change in different situations! Basic right is right and wrong is wrong; it isn't subject to spontaneous whim nor opinion nor circumstance.
There's a purpose for every child's life, a God-given, God-ordained purpose, for every person's life, no matter how long or how short their lives turn out to be.
Thank you for the best laugh I have had this week, you are the epitome of the ridiculous christian conservative and people like you are the ones are ensuring that gay marriage will soon be legal .
Hey, don't blame me for it. Take responsibility for your own actions and words. What you advocate for is your doing, not mine. It is the homosexual activists who are trying to force special "rights" upon the rest of America. Get your facts straight.
Like women once forced special "rights" upon the rest of America when they demanded to vote?
Or when blacks forced special "rights" upon the rest of American when they demanded to stop being treated like slaves even though it was the 1960s?
America has a long and illustrious history of denying certain classes of citizens the very rights our country was founded on.
The only agenda here is equality under the law.
He may not be gay, but there is no doubt that he is in the political pocket of the gay liberation.
Everyone should cease to respond to this and I recommend that it be flagged.
Why should it be flagged? I'm just wondering if our society as a whole actually feels the same way that this guy does. I think his comments are crazy personally.
On what ground could you rationally flag this thread?
On the grounds that it's completely irrational.
But it's not irrational to point out the stupidity of others. It can be frustrating for those people, but oh well.
You people need to keep up.
The latest rumor is that Obama is Amish...
That whole gay thing is so 46 seconds ago.
Not sure I'd qualify as "normal," but I don't think the POTUS is gay.
Wonder what Larry Sinclair has to say about this?
While you're back there in 2008, look up Mother Jones and read "Who Wrecked the Economy?"...july-august 2008. ps: it's not Obama.
What does the economy have to do with Obie and Sinclair? Stay on topic.
Its Obama with the help of Clinton cronies who walked away with millions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (ie Franlin Rains and Jaime Gurelik etc.and were rewarded for their mismanagement. not to mention all the Wall St. buddies who gave to Obama and then got bailouts. Reality is a B...isn't it.
Larry Sinclair came out on the alternet in 08 alleging that he had sex with Obama back in 99, when he was a senator.
He was on c-span this past week-end giving a press conference. He claims that he came to DC looking for "fun", and some guy set him up with Obama.
He says he did coke, Obama smoked crack, and they had sex in a limo. Then he claims Obama came to his hotel room the next morning for some more.
He and a preacher(who came out in 08 too) also claim that Obama had one of his gay lovers killed to keep him quite.
Also making the rounds again is the claim that Obama and Rahm Emmanuel both belonged to the same gay bath house in Chicago.
This claim about Obama is re-surfacing again--don't need to tell me why. It's just like all the RNC-lead women who came out with Clinton stories before his elections.
I'm not knocking it....just acknowledging the reason for it.
But, it's odd that the people here advocating for Sinclair haven't bothered to explain what they are talking about? Why make veiled references? Why not just come out with it?
You're welcome habee....go to rense.com: you will get an EYEFULL!!
To believe anything Jeff Rense would say would be like reading the enquirer for factual information.
The enquirer is owned by the CIA...and they actually do put factual info in there sometimes.
Rense puts anything and everything up. It's up to you to discern.
Whereas, something like the Blaze, or World Net Daily is pure Obama hate.
BIG difference, imo.
The POTUS also supports women's rights.
Does that make him a woman?
Yep and Romney is anti-abortion... thus he is obviously a fetus.
Obama is a Muslim, Kenyan, communist, homosexual, socialist, racist and a woman. Obviously.
*sigh* my guess is you would die of a heart attack if you met a real communist.
Fair enough allow me to rephrase that, if our president was a communist you would probably die of a heart attack. About the time land redistribution begun I suspect. Perhaps at the point when all businesses became property of the state? Or maybe at the point where a homeless family moved into your home.
Nah, I'm prepared and believe in the 2nd amendment.
I am sure plenty of Russians under Stalin felt the same way when they decided not to hand over their property etc. that would go about as well for you as it did for them
You said it all, If he's a socialist alien terrorist, Obama must be gay, also--just like a lot of my friends.
Does everyone know that women who work in his White House, make 18% less than the men do? If he was a woman, that would never go on!
Hmmm...then I guess Abraham Lincoln was black since he freed the slaves! Boy, the things I never learned in US History classes!
He also got the Transcontinental Railroad started so he might have been a train. (Is Choo-Choo the better term?)
I support the preservation of endangered species, which makes me a condor.
And you're wandering why we don't get anything meaningful done in this country today. We the citizens spend our time on stuff that will not solve any problem.
In America today, We are:
massively indebted to other countries like China
Our manufacturing base keeps disappearing
Political corruption that got Richard Nixon in trouble is now considered Kosher
The people that take the time to vote keeps decreasing, yet people moan and complain about lazy politicians
We have more people locked up in jail than any other industrial country including China
We as citizens consume drugs at an alarming rate and yet we pretend all is fine with our moral base
And now you're worried about if Obama should be considered gay.
The govt should not be in the marriage business in the first place. I pray we get a political movement that would wake us all up from this nonsense sideshow.
Be careful about throwing around generalizations. I am a rights advocate.
Yes, that is a political problem. Which isn't powered by the citizens, it's powered by ineffective/inefficient government morons.
What do you expect? The consumer demand for products made cheap/affordable has diminished American made products because it simply costs business too much to do business within American borders. This problem is related to two other sources (a) the status quo and (b) money talks in Congress.
It's not kosher by any stretch of the imagination. But, there's so much distortion and misinformation, it leaves people with a bad taste in their mouth.
If you're going to insinuate that those who don't vote don't have a right to complain, then you're sadly mistaken. It is an individual's right to withhold their vote if they cannot honestly back a candidate and since you mentioned that the numbers for voters are decreasing, should tell that people are using that right.
Because of many factors. But, true nonetheless.
I can only assume you're talking about illegal drugs here. I can tell you one thing though, approximately 75% of American adults are on some sort of anti-depressant. I remember reading a study done about anti-depressant drugs in relation to America's population. That already tells me there's a bigger problem, than what's happening with illegal drugs.
I don't think people are worried about it.
As a revenue source for government I would have to disagree. As it provides Economy with multitude of services, people with jobs which are related and everything else, then government should have a hand. But, government shouldn't be dictating what is already a basic right. Marriage is between to loving people. That's it. Anyone has a right to marry anyone who is willing to marry them. Without interference.
I'm sure it's coming.
My only beef is with people that seat aside and whine about how the govt is not doing anything and yet they refuse to simply vote.
When the majority remains silent the minority would rule with impunity.
We have more poor and middle classes people in America today and yet we moan the rich have all the advantages. Vote the poor and middle class in to change the laws.
My point is, people should take some action instead of just blogging.
Run for political office
Make sure you vote
Read about issues to stay informed.
Just because Obama supports same sex relationships and marriages doesn't automatically make him gay. Ridiculousness of some people has reached such epic proportions that it's not even funny anymore.
I'm still trying to recover from your post that suggests you know what normal people think...
I value the lives of all children Brenda not just my own... but if you want to insist that I couldn't then feel free.
I'm not sure how a woman being raped is more of a cause to terminate a pregnancy than having a child that will live in constant agony. I would support the right to choose in either case. I'm also confused as to why a mother's life comes before a child's under your logic either... if the unborn child's life is paramount then the mother should have the child or die trying.
But for the sake of this particular argument none of the specifics of this argument matter. My tangent was in response to a side point.
The original point was can someone have reason to support a cause even if the cause doesn't directly affect them. I have shown that I can indeed support the right to choose even though I would never have an abortion. In the same vein it is also possible that one can support gay marriage just because they have empathy for the situation. One need not be gay or running for office to do so.
I happen to disagree that one should never support the right of others to choose differently. Trying to force someone to make the same decisions that I make is just wrong. Would you like to be forced to have five kids Brenda? I chose to. Would you like to be forced to live just like I do? If not then why would you want to force someone to live like you?
The two subjects aren't parallel nor equal in any way, shape, or form.
The basic right of a child to be given the opportunity to LIVE
The push to sanction the unnatural sexual habits of a group of supposed-adults!
No valid comparison there at all.
Still not the point. The point was whether you could back a position that you weren't directly involved in. Obviously I can... which means it's possible... and therefore must be possible for others.
Side tangents- mine or yours- not withstanding
Yup I am not black but I support the rights of black people, I am not a miner but I support their union movement not to be exploited, I am not a woman but I support women's right and I am not gay but I support gay rights, seriously Brenda how can this be difficult to get your head around?
As for gay sex being unnatural this is provenly untrue, many species engage in gay sex particularly more advanced species like the great Apes and homosexual behavior has been recorded amongst humans since the beginning of human history so how can it be unnatural if we can find it in nature and in human nature?
If your definition of unnatural is anything that can't conceive children then I as a straight man commit unnatural acts with my partner all the time and if you don't you must have a very sad and sorry sex life, my condolences for your loss.
Well of course.
I approved of the decision by our Government to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin and have him killed, even though I'm not personally involved. That's a matter of National security, sovreignty, and responsibility.
I approved of many laws that I wasn't and am not directly involved in. That's...kinda...the way citizenship works, don't ya know? Seriously. We're not each just citizens on our own, doing our own thing. There's a commonality, a basic pattern, groundwork, for human society, basic human laws that should be adhered to. I don't have to commit burglary to know burglary is wrong. That's why we have courts and jails, etc., to govern people's actions. I don't have to wreck my car to know it's dangerous. That's why society has laws to begin with, to....ummm.....actually protect those who are innocent and do right, and punish those who do wrong, to govern ourselves as a whole.
Larry Sinclair is a criminal and a liar.
Obama accuser has long rap sheet
By BEN SMITH | 6/18/08 7:58 AM EST
Larry Sinclair is wanted in Colorado, but you can catch him today at the National Press Club.
Sinclair is familiar to political junkies and reporters as the source of outlandish allegations about Senator Barack Obama, tales that began with sex and drugs and moved on to murder.
The Duluth, Minn., resident is the sort of figure who appears at the margins of every presidential campaign, and both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had their own obscure accusers with dramatic allegations. But as the old media ignores him, Sinclair has taken full advantage of the Internet, and a video in which he makes his claims that have been viewed more than 900,000 times on YouTube.
This afternoon, he's reserved the Holeman Lounge at downtown Washington's National Press Club
to try to lend his story the legitimacy that comes with national media attention.
Sinclair's biography, though, may get in the way of that pitch: Public records and court filings reveal that he has a 27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit. The record includes forgery charges in two states, one of which drew Sinclair a 16-year jail sentence. The Pueblo County, Colo., Sheriff's Office also has an outstanding warrant for Sinclair's arrest for forging an acquaintance's signature and stealing her tax refunds.
"It is what it is," said Sinclair's spokesman, Montgomery Blair Sibley, of his client's criminal record. "He's not hiding from it, he's not denying it."
Don't expect Gore on the campaign trail
McCain plays with fire on offshore drilling
Now in production: Senate majority
Sinclair has, however, addressed elements of his criminal past on his own blog and in court filings punctuated by unusual spellings and capitalizations.
Addressing the Pueblo County theft charges, Sinclair swore in a 2004 affidavit that his "ALLEGED VICTIM SEEKS TO USE DEFENDANT AS SCAPE GOAT FOR HER HUSBANDS AND BROTHERS PROBLEMS WITH MEXICAN DRUG DEALERS."
Sinclair's affidavit, which he posted to his blog, accompanied a request to a Colorado judge to dismiss the warrant on the grounds that Sinclair was "disabled with [a] severe spine injury and nerve damage," that returning to Colorado would put his life in danger, and that he was "terminally ill."
Sinclair, who is still alive, is 46, stands 5'7", and weights 168 pounds, according to arrest records. Colorado records list him with 13 aliases, including "Larye Vizcarra Avila" and "Mohammed Gahanan." His story has generally been ignored by the mainstream media, because he's been unable to substantiate his allegations. He has come to public attention recently, however, because his planned appearance at the National Press Club drew complaints from a wide array of prominent liberal bloggers, led by Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher. Their petition to prevent Sinclair from renting space at the club – which bloggers feared would lend him credibility – drew more than 11,000 signatures.
Press Club President Sylvia Smith said Sinclair had rented space at the club, which doesn't censor speakers.
"I'm not aware that we've ever turned anybody away for content," she said, adding that Sinclair's allegations "don't seem very credible."
Politico isn't reprinting Sinclair's allegations because they are unsubstantiated.
This February, the website Whitehouse.com reportedly offered Sinclair $100,000 if he could pass a polygraph test verifying his claims. He took them up on it, and the site said in a press release that the polygraph organizers said his results "indicated deception." Sinclair then suggested the polygraph's sponsors had been bribed to skew the results against him, an allegation his lawyer, Sibley, said he would expand on at his press conference.
Sibley is best known as the lawyer for the "D.C. Madam," the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Earlier this year, the Florida Bar Association suspended Sibley's license to practice law, in part for being a "vexatious litigant," a suspension that applies in Washington, D.C., as well.
Wednesday, Whitehouse.com has scheduled a competing press conference outside the National Press Club to discuss the results of the polygraph.
Sinclair's brushes with the government long predate his recent interest in Senator Obama. The details of his criminal record surfaced after he filed a defamation suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against three anonymous online critics with names like TubeSockTedD who had written, among other claims, that he was living in a mental institution at the time he allegedly met Obama. Sinclair denies the claim.
In response to his suit, a lawyer for the anonymous bloggers hired local attorneys and private investigators, and dug up details of Sinclair's criminal record from Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina. The lawyer, Paul Levy of the nonprofit Public Citizen Litigation Group, provided his client's filings in federal court, which are publicly available, to Politico.
The records tell the story of an itinerant life of small-time crime and bad checks, punctuated by stretches of jail time in two states.
He was first arrested on a larceny charge in 1981 in Denver, according to his Colorado arrest record, as filed in federal court. In 1985, he was convicted of theft and of forging a check in Florida, and sentenced to a year in jail, according to Florida records filed in federal court.
After the Florida episode, according to the records, he returned to Colorado, where he faced check fraud and credit card charges in 1986. Then, in 1987, he was convicted in Colorado on more serious forgery charges, and sentenced to 16 years in jail.
In prison, according to state records filed in federal court, Sinclair was disciplined 97 times for infractions including assault, threats, drug possession, intimidation, and verbal abuse, most recently in
"He has not institutionalized well," a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections, Liz McDonough, told the Denver Post in 1996 after a month-long Sinclair hunger strike. She said he had served time in prisons in Buena Vista, Delta, Limon and Canon City before being transferred to the state's maximum security penitentiary in 1993.
In the summer of 1996, according to Colorado's state court database, he began proceedings to formally change his name from LA Rye Viz. Avila to Larry Wayne Sinclair. By 1999, according to a mention in a local newspaper, he was out of jail and living in Pueblo, Colo.
The Public Citizen investigator in Colorado stated that Sinclair's outstanding legal troubles there appear to date from 2001, and that Sinclair's effort to convince the judge in 2004 to dismiss those charges failed. The Pueblo County Sheriff's website, which pictures Sinclair under the word "Wanted," cites felony theft and forgery charges.
Sinclair was also arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in South Carolina last September, according to state records filed in federal court.
Sinclair has said that he tried to contact Obama in 2007 to discuss his claims and was ignored, forcing him to go public. On January 18, 2008, a one-minute-and-42-second video was posted to YouTube. It features Sinclair, speaking in a high voice and wearing a red shirt and blue baseball cap, reciting his allegations and addressing Obama.
"I challenge you to take a polygraph test," he says in the video.
Since then, he's promoted and elaborated on his claims, and engaged in intense online exchanges with infuriated Obama supporters on his blog and in federal court, where Sinclair and Sibley's defamation claim has suffered a series of legal setbacks.
Obama's spokesman declined to comment on any aspect of Sinclair's story, or his appearance at the press club.
Despite the warrant for Sinclair's arrest, he appears likely to stay out of jail, as long as he stays out of Colorado. Pueblo County Undersheriff J.R. Hall said that the warrant doesn't allow for extradition from out of state.
"I doubt very seriously we're going to be in that jurisdiction tomorrow," Undersheriff Hall said of Washington, D.C.
Sinclair's notoriety, and his scheduled press conference, however, has drawn the interest of the Colorado authorities.
"We've notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they will investigate," Hall said.
Disclosure: Public Citizen, which represents the bloggers Sinclair sued, also represents Ben Smith in an unrelated case.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 … z1v2JHkWbh
Hmmmm, interesting. I thought it was kind of "playing to the audience" when he said he did coke, and Obama smoked crack.....had never seen that one before.
Last I read, they both did coke...crack was not mentioned.
Guess he needed to "spice" (race) up the story for the GOP.
Or the Baggers...which ever operative is behind this re-gurgitation effort.
smells like Rove Big Time.
(Who, btw---was also rumored about in 08! Apparently, HE liked to hang out at gay bars dressed as Miss Piggy. how you like rumors NOW?)
well...i haven't been on here for a few days and of course the thread title caught my eye and made me laugh out loud.....thanks!....
why do these men who call themselves politician behave the way the do, playing on our intelligence always?
by SpaceShanty4 years ago
The quote on Google's home page appears to be critical of Russia's anti gay laws.
by Brian17 months ago
A lot of straight people don't understand why gay people are gay, and why we are constantly fighting for our rights. If you take this simple test and think about it you might get it.It doesn't matter what your gender...
by Miss Info6 years ago
I was chatting with a friend, Sam, the other day. He is openly gay, insists that he is a traditional Orthodox Jew and is very adamant about his “rights”. He believed that “people should be able to live however...
by taburkett19 months ago
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental...
by Brie Hoffman3 years ago
My article titled Gay Agenda Threatens Christian Business Owners and Employees had the ads disabled.I think Hubpages is discriminating against me because of my viewpoint. I noticed several pro-Gay articles that...
by Elayne6 years ago
How do you feel about the homosexual agenda being taught to elementary children?http://www.ldsmag.com/lds-church-update … /6394?ac=1
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.