Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Obama: drugs, gay sex and intimidation?

According to an article in WorldNetDaily, Larry Sinclair alleges that he took drugs and had gay sex with Barack Obama. Sinclair has now filed a lawsuit in Minnesota District Court "alleging threats and intimidation by Obama's staff."

Anyone who has read my blog knows how concerned I am about Barack Obama's candidacy, but I am also concerned about how damaging it is to the democratic process when sleaze balls lie through their teeth about political or judicial candidates.

I know slander laws are hard to enforce when someone in the public eye is involved, but if Mr. Sinclair's allegations are lies, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If his allegations are true, the public should know. Where are the Woodward's and Bernstein's when you need them?

UPDATE: WorldNetDaily is reporting that Obama's accuser has failed two polygraph tests. I think the man should be prosecuted.

12 comments:

professor ed said...

Congratulations to Larry Sinclair. He holds the distinction of slinging the first handful of mud at the presumed Presidential candidate of the Democrat Party. I hope McCain and Obama plan to take numerous baths once each isnominated by his respective party; this promises to be a VERY DIRTY campaign.

Robert said...

I wonder if Hillary happens to be involved in this...

Steve said...

The problem with peddling sleaze is that it usually makes the person peddling it look sleazier than the person it's aimed at. Could you possibly stoop any lower, Dennis? I've been reading this blog for several years and watching you devolve from a thoughtful, intelligent person I often disagreed with into what you have become today, which is truly shameful. Now, reading your blog is like watching a car wreck in slow motion. What happened to you?

Dennis said...

You're right, Steve. I feel ashamed of myself. Certainly nothing like this could possibly be true of a presidential candidate. I mean think of the sleazy bimbo who accused a former president of having oral sex with her in the White House....oh, wait, bad example.

How about the congressman who was accused of soliciting homosexual sex in a Minneapolis airport restroom, oops, another bad example.

Since this Larry Sinclair is willing to go to court against Obama, and since by Obama's own admission he once used drugs, it seems to me that Sinclair's allegations at least deserve to be investigated (I guess you only want charges investigated if they are against Republican appointees, like Clarence Thomas, for example).

If Sinclair's allegations prove false, I would be happy to see Obama sue him for everything he's worth as a warning to others who deliberately lie to ruin politician's careers.

I don't like Obama, but I want him defeated for his ideology, not because someone lies about him.

Brent said...

"I guess you only want charges investigated if they are against Republican appointees"

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this blog only points out supposed controversies regarding Democrats. You virtually never bring up scandals or potentials scandals involving Republicans.

"I don't like Obama, but I want him defeated for his ideology, not because someone lies about him."

That's funny, because you also never bring up issues that you disagree with him about. It's either criticizing him for having no ideas or repeating slander such as this.

Robert said...

I seem to recall this blog talking about Republicans who:

A) Had homosexual relations in a bathroom (Larry Craig)
B) Had a dubious relationship with pages (Mark Foley)

If you're going to argue that it doesn't call Republicans to the carpet for doing immoral (or illegal) things, then you're making a hollow case. Besides, let's face it, you're reading a right-wing blog. Don't pretend like you weren't aware of that. It's not like I see you complaining that Media Matters (The Hillary Clinton/Democrat front group) isn't providing enough balanced coverage on things that Democrats do wrong...

In regards to your comments about this blog not addressing items of differences with Obama, it's mostly because Obama's speeches are fluff and empty. He speaks more about hope and change and empty platitudes than he does about real policy positions. This criticism isn't just coming from the right, but from the left as well (Hillary has been leveling that charge for a while). I guess you could say that once he's been nominated he'll start articulating his policy, but I don't think he'll change a winning strategy. After all, it's hard to criticize something someone says when they don't say anything.

Finally, if there is something that I can say that's critical of this blog, it's that you often have to look to the comments to get a well crafted opinion from the author. Most of the posts on the front page are short blurbs. I like it better when the argument is laid out on the front and the comments argue the finer points of the opinion.

For example of really good entries, pick the Christianity topic and read, Pleasing God or the older post, God’s unconditional love?. These posts outline Dr. Ingolfsland’s opinion combined with the obvious passion, knowledge, and understanding of the topic that he brings. I suppose most of us aren’t well equipped enough to argue those points (hence lower participation on those particular posts), but he could do the same with other topics. I’m not suggesting he change the format of his blogging, just acknowledging that I like it best when he puts a complete thought on the front page. :)

Otherwise Brent, I don’t think your accusation is entirely fair.

Brent said...

I have plenty of criticisms of other blogs/websites (even left-wing ones), but how would it be relevant for me to bring them up on this one? And if you think Media Matters is a Clinton "front group" I'm not sure why they would spend so much time defending Obama, but that's another conversation.

Maybe my criticisms are unfair, I'm a relatively new reader here. But funny that the two GOP scandals you can recall being discussed involve homosexuality. That's the one thing the right won't tolerate, even from their own.

Robert said...

Brent -

If the "Republican scandals" had been Republicans having sex in bathrooms with women, picking up prostitutes, or having extra-marital affairs with female pages, I can guarantee that Dr. Ingolfsland would have been equally as hard. Republicans (traditionally) have been harder on their representatives for their moral vices than their Democrat counterparts. This is why the McCain accusation is potentially so much more damaging than the Obama "gay sex and drugs" allegation. With conservatives already disliking McCain, more Clinton-esque reminders and shots at his character will help to keep away a group that won't tolerate such behavior.

BTW, I didn't realize you were a new reader. I guess I thought you were a lurker. Welcome to the blog. :)

L'oiseau said...

I didn't want to respond to this as it disgusts me, but here's something on youtube.com debunking these false claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq9QMOcD_w8&feature=relatedhere

Brent said...

Nice link, L'oiseau. Turns out Larry Sinclair also failed a polygraph test about his claims as well (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/
f-news/1975551/posts). Unfortunately, the author of this blog and many of the readers are probably not interested in the truth, and I'd bet the farm we won't see a new blog post retracting these malicious lies.

Dennis said...

Brent, speaking of someone not interested in the truth, BEFORE l'oiseau or you issued your last two responses, I had already placed an update on the original post citing the fact that Sinclair had failed the polygraph text and suggesting that he should be prosecuted!

You were apparently so eager to slam me you didn't bother to look.

Brent said...

No, I don't re-read everything before I write new comments, so I apologize if I missed it. Hopefully this will make you think twice before repeating such vicious and ridiculous lies, and ridiculing those who express skepticism.