By Andrea Widburg
Last night, Tucker Carlson released his interview with Larry Sinclair, the man who alleges that, in 1999, while in Chicago, he did cocaine with Obama (who preferred to smoke his) and then performed oral sex on Obama. This is a tale that Sinclair has told before. It’s worth noting because it reminds us of the partnership between the media and the Democrat party. There were also some interesting details about big tech and a strange death (or maybe a few strange deaths).
Here’s the interview:
As I said, nothing new. However, I found it very amusing when, after hearing Sinclair detail how he shared drugs with Obama and performed oral sex on him, Tucker asked Sinclair if that left a bad taste in his mouth, and Sinclair said that it did. Tucker and Sinclair were obviously speaking about the entire two-day interlude, from first meeting Obama to never seeing the man again, but I can be remarkably literal and, well, you get the joke.
There were two interesting parts of the interview with which I was not familiar. The first was Sinclair’s discussion about how the media and big tech went after him. Some media outlets lied about Sinclair’s criminal history (which he’d been quite open about in the YouTube video he originally made), grossly exaggerating it, and then dismissed him as a criminal and a crackpot.
Others blacked out the story after the Obama campaign said that, if they reported on it, the campaign would blacklist them. They chose access over investigative reporting and honesty. They also chose it over national security. After all, a president with a secret life of drugs and gay sex is perfectly situated to be blackmailed, with huge national security consequences. But for the national political media, getting a black man into the White House was more important than America’s well-being and safety.
Sinclair also explained that he was very quickly locked out of YouTube. YouTube gave someone else access to his account after he took a polygraph test and then deleted the video. Microsoft, meanwhile, allowed someone else access to his Hotmail account, with that person circulating his emails on the internet and creating an obscene automatic response to any emails sent to the account.
The second interesting thing was Sinclair explaining how, in late 2007, he reached out to the Obama campaign suggesting that the campaign stop telling all sorts of conflicting stories about Obama’s drug use. The campaign, he said, should just admit that Obama was still using drugs at least as late as 1999. Sinclair didn’t hear back from the campaign. Instead, he heard from Donald Young, who explained that the campaign wouldn’t acknowledge any sex or drug stories about Obama.
According to Sinclair, Young eventually told him that he was the gay choirmaster at the Reverend Wright’s church, the one where Obama sat in the pews for 20 years as Wright blasted America. He also said that he had a long-term “intimate” relationship with Obama. Not long after that, Young was murdered in his apartment. Young’s mother believes that it was to silence him (according to Sinclair).
Curious about this, I searched Young’s name on the internet and stumbled across an anti-Obama article from 2009. According to this article, Young was one of three gay men in Wright’s congregation who were executed within less than two months of each other. The local media suspected a gay killing rampage. However, the 2009 article suggests that they were killed because it’s possible that all three, not just Young, could have talked about Obama.
That’s conspiracy theory stuff, but if true, it would also answer a question I’ve always asked myself: If Obama was indeed having gay sex in Chicago, how was it that only one person talked? Can that many people really keep a secret? Well, they could if those who knew were getting knocked off. Then, it’s very likely that others would discover the virtue of silence.