Back a few years ago, during the Barrack Obama Presidency (our 44th Head of State), there were two distinctly and sharply polarised schools of opinion on the merits of our ‘first black president’. Those on the left have generally and almost unreservedly championed him as a near-Messiah, proclaiming him to presage a new dawning of erstwhile ‘black equality’ in America. Those on the right have consistently tried to discredit him, question his legitimacy and dismiss him as nothing more than a highly constructed (‘hollow’ was a term used in this regard) and largely symbolic totem of racial justice and equity.

Among my personal circle of friends and acquaintances, who in many cases are military veterans (Air Force predominantly but also some USN Aviators), the consensus on Obama was reservedly scornful as a whole but more often downright dismissive and overtly critical. I myself remained largely neutral on the subject of whether our new president marked a step forward in our nation’s progress or whether he was merely another effusive liberal democratic pawn in the left’s ongoing chess game to push America towards socialism (and away from the ‘nastiness’ of Capitalism…this regardless of the fact that much of America’s capital wealth and power was in fact funding this left-of-center progressive political activism).

I, however, despite being a Schopenhauer-grade pessimist, still harbor a deeply buried, uncharacteristic (of me) and usually highly suppressed belief in the inherent goodness of humanity and of mankind. This anomaly in my philosophic construct is probably a latent relic of my upbringing and my family’s strong Christian beliefs ( a most unholy admixture of Roman Catholic, French Huguenot Protestantism and Anglican ‘high church’ dogma), which I did not even begin to question and/or consider rationally their merits on the basis of their justifying logic until I was pubescent. Fortunately for me, I threw off that burdensome yoke of superstitious, religious mumbo-jumbo about the time I had my first encounter with a young slut named Betty-Jo Biolosky (named changed to protect the guilty) in my freshman year at high school (her enthusiastic scream of “Oh GOD!”, as we both climaxed on a couch, I immediately recognised as somewhat hypocritical since there was no deityinvolved in our animal rutting…).

Acting under the influence of that early religious brainwashing, a part of me still strives to regard people as being inherently good unless or until proven otherwise and when it comes to holders of the nation’s highest legislative office, I am constitutionally compelled to believe that they are wise enough, moral enough and unbesmirchable enough to fully justify my faith in their integrity, wisdom and ability to lead our nation.

Therefore, I adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards our 44th President. After all, I had had high hopes for and faith in Obama’s predecessor, Bill ‘Fellatio’ Clinton (and his wife…boy, how WRONG that turned out to be!). Like a complete naïf, I even sent them a letter expressing my optimism immediately after that election that Clinton would lead the nation to new heights of personal and national integrity; ‘they’ answered me with a letter of thanks for my gesture, composed by a robot and signed by one of those machines that duplicates an important person’s signature in blue inked script, of course, to convey a vestige of sincerity). But Golly-gee!...we seemed to be off and on our way towards a new era of American greatness, didn’t we?

And then, after Bill’s ignominious fall from grace, along came Barrack Obama, attended by a fierce storm of right-wing protests and flak from critics who argued that he wasn’t even a ‘real black man’ let alone that in fact, he wasn’t even a natural-born, legal American citizen. And then there were the critics who accused him of being a Muslim and a Communist socialist, etc., etc., etc. It seemed as if the vaunted woodwork suddenly evacuated itself of all the nuts the crazy human woodpeckers had drilled into it over the years, all at once!

By my reckoning, most all of it was pure Irish blarney, made up and largely instigated by fiercely political, partisan detractors who resented that a man with black skin had been made a president of the United States (and as such, a mere token of racial harmony). As all these criticisms flew to fill the air with contentious disharmony, I merely sat back and waited for some evidence of either claim (that he was either a disaster or a ‘Godsend’ to a nation that sorely needed a wise statesman at its helm).

Strangely, very little information to the contrary (that he was a sham, an incompetent foreign policy disaster and a domestic political embarrassment) emerged in the media. It didn’t dawn on me at the time that America’s mass commercial media was so highly and thoroughly partisan in its left-leaning spin on news relating to politics. After all, I was raised in an era in which such august and highly respected journalists as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite exemplified the supreme apex of journalistic integrity, respectability and equanimousness. What was not to believe in such patriarchal, fatherly affect that aired every evening at about 6PM on national news programs?

It was, of course, earlier in an era in which men still predominated in media news broadcasts and television itself was not yet a fully unexplored (read: as yet unexploited) medium. It was also an age in which local news broadcasting was also relatively unknown and well before most local news stations were taken over entirely by the major media network corporations as fully-owned subsidiaries, as they all are now. It was further long before women managed to infiltrate (and eventually nearly subsume wholly) almost all media outlets, whether national or local, and of course LONG before almost all media began to require that its female reporters and anchors (and males) be predominantly ‘people of color’ (which coincided with the COVID-19 and black social violence during the years 2019-20).

[Speaking of that, about mid-2019 it seemed as if almost overnight the whole television industry suddenly sprouted black actors, black marketing models, etc., etc.; one day television commercials still featured dumbed-down, stupid-appearing white yokels hawking commercial products and then…PRESTO!...the next, the white models and actors had miraculously been replaced by similarly dumbed-down, stupid-appearing black yokels! A sea-change! Fer goodness sake!]

Of course, all this was come about as a result of the massive leftist liberal push by young radical progressive, Marcus-educated proto-socialist activists that attended Obama’s ascent to the nation’s highest elected office AND the rise of progressive protest movements (like the highly corrupt and duplicitous ‘Black Lives Matter’ and the ironically named AntiFa organisations, which was largely a white leftist/fascist group). Meanwhile, fearing a possible ferocious backlash in response to the merest protestations of mild dissent or disagreement by white conservatives, most conventional white Americans simply sat back, suspecting that something about all this kerfuffle rather STANK, but deciding to sit back and keep their own quiet counsel. After all, no one wants to be labeled a racist, especially if that accusation is hurled by radical left-wing blacks and progressives who have adopted that epithet (racist!) as their own exclusive and privileged term (think ‘culture-denial’ here and the ‘evil white people’ hypothesis so popular with woke, critical race theorists).

Be all that as it may, it is now hopefully a lot clearer to average Americans in general that present-day commercial media is no longer their friend or that broadcast media is ‘fair and balanced’, or the least bit objective in its horribly twisted spin on interpreting national and international events to suit the left’s progressive cause.

I say all this in order to provide some context within which to say what follows.

In recent years, certain controversial allegations arose pertaining to President Barack Obama. More specifically, that as a young congressman (Senator for Illinois), Mr. Obama had recreationally used cocaine, but far more damningly that he had had a ‘gay’ relationship with the choir master of the church he attended in Washington, DC. These allegations were made by one Larry Sinclair, who also testified that he had once engaged in oral sex with Obama and had sex with him ‘several times’.

Startling? Shocking? Certainly, to someone like me, who, if I am not a huge fan of Obama (or his political track record), is still capable of feeling shaken by the fact that someone like the nation’s president could be so utterly, outrageously amoral, in complete contrast to the squeaky-clean image of him presented to the American public by protective mainstream commercial media.

But consider, if you will, that until similarly shocking revelations began to emerge after beloved president John F. Kennedy’s death that he was also far from being a paragon of virtue and moral integrity…that he had in fact led two lives, one completely private and carefully hidden from the public and the other exemplified and lionized as the young, stalwart and capable leader of the world’s most powerful nation. In truth, even to his personal secret service bodyguards, he was well known for his sexual misadventures and numerous trysts.

Consider further that Bill Clinton, despite having made a number of what would seem to be substantial foreign policy and economic contributions to the further benefit of our nation (and the world), was such a horny little devil that he DARED to engage in the brazen effrontery of having oral sex with a young White House intern (we all know who that was, naturally) in the Oval Office itself! After all that excrement from that hit the air-circulating device, Hillary was later shown to have known all about her unfaithful husband’s rampant infidelities yet perversely supported his PR image by standing by him, even as he blatantly lied under oath about his sexual indiscretions.

It is furthermore a somewhat lesser-known matter of record that even our present Vice President, Kamala Harris, committed what would be considered by any standard as inappropriately indiscrete ‘personal services’ (ahem!) to former State of California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (while he was still married), thereby earning his enthusiastic support that resulted in a boost of her otherwise admittedly lackluster qualifications up the career ladder, to her present high office.

All of this simply illustrates what we often suspect, that regardless of the august claims to ethical and moral integrity, leaders of all nations can and often are simply every-day people like you and I, and despite their carefully cultivated public appearance and partisan media promoted public image, they are just as susceptible to serious lapses of prudent judgement as ourselves.

Such lapses of decorum on the part of the highest public officials have long been so common in many European and East European countries that it has almost become an accepted practice in most British, French, Italian and Soviet (Russian) governments. But, here in a nation that was founded on the strictest moral principles of Calvinist Protestantism, such behavior has traditionally been regarded as nothing less than shocking and appalling.

Until recent decades, that is, when the sheer hypocrisy of institutional American Christianity finally caught up and tripped many of our ‘holier-than-thou’ religions icons. Gradually, as the decades advanced, we became more and more inured to prominent evangelical religious leaders who often committed some of the worst moral transgressions recorded in recent times. No one seemed impervious to such violations of expected high standards of decorum (including Martin Luther King, who despite his singularly inspiring leadership of American blacks, was eventually found to be just as horny and lustful as the worst of us in his private affairs).

Then, in the most recent decades and in full synchronicity with the progressive movement to foster, establish and assure complete civil and legal rights for gay people (I won’t say ‘LGBTQ+’, since that’s such a sanitized and hackneyed catch-all term), the ‘rainbow tsunami’ gained such inertia that today what was formerly considered lewd, perverse and unnatural sexual preference not only came to be considered almost perfectly acceptable, it quickly became an oppressive social policy that average Americans continue to get figuratively hit over the head with, every day! [I hesitate to say ‘jammed down our throats’ for obvious reasons, but the analogue is certainly apt.]

Ironically, it has been largely the mass media, in concert with powerful liberal leftist economic (read: corporate) entities, that have forced this attitude on us of such actions and/or behavior being perfectly ‘normal’ and acceptable. The ‘why’ of that is perfectly understandable: wherever there’s money to be made from the suckers (P.T. Barnum’s prime directive, of course), that’s where the social-political dynamism is to be found (“Look for the money”). Think of this as catering to rising social elements that have become unignorably demanding in their requirements, but since those elements all have money (or potentially exploitable wealth), corporate media and marketing sits up and pays attention like a dog cadging treats.

It was the same with the then-newly-discovered ‘youth market’ of the post-war 50s and 60s, who having been found to signify a potentially huge and highly exploitable market for domestic commercial goods and services, became a primary target for the powerful corporations, eager to have them spend all that discretionary income on consumer products. Of course, in an unholy alliance with Hollywood, this came to result in an obsessive, disproportionate regard placed upon the value, ‘wisdom’ and whims of immature, callow modern youth (e.g., ‘The youthfulness obsession’ that has since coopted and dominated all of America’s corporate economy since the 1950s).

OK, my point here, albeit a long-winded one (as usual for me) is that in our present day, ‘gay’ sexual indiscretion has almost become as perfectly acceptable as formerly ‘conventional’ sexual indiscretion. In other words, and to put it somewhat indelicately, male oral sex is almost as unremarkable as male/female oral sex to many people, even if the strictest evangelical Pentecostal Christians still eschew such changes in America’s sexual codes (attitudes which they regard as ‘grossly abnormal’, even blasphemous, based upon their strict and narrow interpretation of ultra-conservative religious dogmas and doctrines).

But not quite…for in 2009, one Larry Sinclair made the startling allegations that the young Barrack Obama (then a congressman), not only used recreational cocaine, but that he engaged in gay sex with the choir director of a Washington church he attended, maintaining an illicit, covert gay relationship with that person. He also states he had had sex with Obama “several times” and gave details of a supposedly ‘gay clique’ within that church that he alleged existed. But let me reprint here several reviews of Sinclair’s book (taken from the AMAZON website advertising his book), since they cite the allegations made far more succinctly than I might be able to:

“The allegations Larry Sinclair makes in this book about our current president should be sending shock-waves through our national media. Consider that on November 6 & 7, 1999 Sinclair claims that he engaged in homosexual acts with then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who during these trysts not only procured cocaine for the author, but also smoked crack cocaine while being fellated. Although relatively unknown outside his home state at the time, Obama hit the national stage in 2004 by delivering a keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. Sinclair realized only then that he'd engaged in sex with an up-and-coming political superstar.

“After hearing what he perceived to be blatant lies about Obama's sexuality and drug use, Sinclair uploaded an infamous YouTube video, made a television appearance in Puerto Rico, and addressed the National Press Club in Washington, DC. As a result, he describes how Senior Advisor David Axelrod spearheaded a vindictive smear campaign against him, while Senator Joe Biden and his son Beau arranged for his arrest after the NPC speech. Even more incriminating, Sinclair writes about his concerns that Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright were involved in the murder of Obama's former lover, choirmaster Donald Young.

“Whether you agree with him or not, Larry Sinclair's book is an authentic page-turner, one that I completed in a single sitting. In an age where political correctness reigns supreme, it's refreshing to read an expose that lays all its chips on the table, regardless of the ramifications.”

(Victor Thorn author, Hillary (and Bill): The Sex Volume --Victor Thorn, Author, Hillary (and Bill): The Sex Volume November 30, 2009)

And:

"A shocking expose of an American President that makes Bill Clinton, and/or the rumors about John F. Kennedy seem minor by comparison."

(Review by K. Kenny --K Kenny, October 4, 2009)

And:

“I have just finished reading a book written by Lawrence W. Sinclair which title is: BARACK OBAMA & LARRY SINCLAIR: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & MURDER?

“As to the content: The author wrote his book under the most trying of circumstances including threats on his life and his family's lives. The lies that have been told about him, by Obama supporters, among people in high places, in government and the news media only attest to one thing; THE BOOK IS TOTALLY NON-FICTION.

“Plato (the philosopher) once pointed out that truth has a certain ring to it; Sinclair's book, without a doubt, proves Plato's point. The 'ring of truth' in his (Larry's) book is loud and clear.

“If you would like to learn of the depth politicians will go to amass power -- if you would like to learn of just a few of the 'deals' politicians make with the devil, get a copy of Sinclair's book. It will disgust you -- it will make you want to vomit -- it will make you angry as hell. Above all, it will make you realize this isn't Kansas, Toto." It is beyond belief that Mr. Sinclair was able to even publish his book, let alone have it printed.

“Two things are for sure: 1) After reading it you will know what type of hoodlum resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 2) Although Larry Sinclair is an admitted gay person, he is more of a 'man' than 99 percent of the politicians in Washington.”

(Joe7000 Good Reads.com, July 24, 2009)

Further:

“Virtually everyone has heard about Larry Sinclair and his allegations regarding a couple of days he spent with Barack Obama in Chicago in 1999. After a highly orchestrated whitewashing by the mainstream media of the story, and after being blackballed by every single book publisher he contacted regarding the publication of his story, Larry Sinclair decided to start his own publishing company, and this is the first book from Sinclair Publishing.

“Obama's silence on Sinclair's allegations is deafening. It speaks volumes about what likely happened in Chicago back on November 6 and 7, 1999. And although I was not there to witness the events, it sounds like, judging from the consistency of Sinclair's story over a year and a half, and the fine details he provides in the book, that Sinclair is in fact telling the truth. It appears that indeed Obama was leading a life as a closeted bisexual at least through 1999. Oh, and of course, he also seemed to have been fudging the truth regarding his drug use since, especially since college...”

(Chirpy Rumblings, October 24, 2009)

Pretty shocking allegations, eh? At this point let me state for the record that I have no possible means of substantiating any of the above statements by erstwhile ‘reviewers’ of Sinclair’s book. They may actually have been written by Sinclair himself, under pseudonyms, but the fact that he has dared to state such insinuations openly (in written form) must be carefully weighed and considered, after all, since the search for truth knows no bounds of limitations…especially in a free and supposedly ‘open’ society such as America’s (although we all know that such freedoms are rapidly disappearing and eroding ever more quickly in today’s politically correct, culture-denying America.

Sinclair states that his allegations (and book) have been subject to covert repression by powerful persons/organisations undeclared and that the full power of the leftist progressive ‘establishment’ has striven to utterly eradicate any full public discussion of these shocking insinuations. Others have repeatedly attempted to discredited Sinclair himself and the veracity of his statements, citing his ‘shady and unreliable’ background, drug use, etc., etc. Familiar arguments used to discredit someone who is not totally reputable and dismiss them out of hand.

What amazes me is that although the Obama White House engaged in a known amount of damage control devoted to other issues they felt obligated to respond to about Obama Administration shortcomings, there has never been ANY formal response of any kind, denial or rebuttal of Sinclair’s admittedly bizarre claims by Mr. Obama or his spokespeople. It is almost as if Sinclair and his utterances were regarded as being so ‘far below acceptable limits of veracity and the possible’ (beneath contempt) that a response was not even deigned to be necessary or dignified by a reply.

Fast forward to recent more times and the publication of several other books bearing on Washington DC political indiscretions, the most recent being a book titled ‘Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington’, by James Kirchick (released May 31st, 2022), which delves into the influence and Machiavellian affairs of powerful gay people in the nation’s capital. Gay Washington?! Whoda thunk it?

Bruce Bawer, in the most recent edition of Commentary Magazine, a Jewish intellectual publication, has reviewed this book on page 53 of the current issue (May 2022) that is well worth reading. Other articles of relevant interest may be found that include a May 3rd, 2017 article in the New York Post, giving information about the rather philistine marital choices Obama made deliberately to further his ambition to be elected the ‘first black American President, thereby taking some of the vaunted luster off of his burnished official public image.

Another one, an article by Pulitzer Prize winner David J. Garrow, found in The Guardian Online (‘Obama Biography Stirs Controversy with Tales of Politics, Sex and a Rising Star’), May 2017, further takes more of the squeaky-clean shine off Obama’s reputation as the liberal left’s progressive darling of moral integrity. All are well-worth reading, in light of the above stunning allegations of moral impropriety by the former President while an elected official, holding high office (Congress). They further demonstrate a gradual deviation from high purpose and the public interest into a quest for legacy and reputation, deservedly or undeservedly, and as such they almost demand open scrutiny.

There are several other relevatory articles that, while none as explicitly accusatory as Sinclair’s sensational claims, nonetheless open up other areas of interest and inquiry regarding Obama’s support of the ‘gay agenda’ in America. For a complete listing, please refer to the index that follows at the end of this piece.

There’s little question that Barrack Obama had all the academic and intellectual qualifications to be a suitable candidate for high office in America, but the question of possible moral transgressions remains open and yet to be determined…as they may be only if such alleged misbehavior is given a rational venue within which to openly consider and fairly weigh the evidence attested to by Sinclair. Thus far, there has been little if much at all public discussion of any of these insinuations (what has been delicately referred to in one of the articles as ‘uncertain knowledge’), whether due to simple non-interest by a jaded public or a determined, covert effort by powerful interests to deliberate quash and/or suppress such a colloquy.

Let me say here that I myself am not personally biased against gays or homosexual behavior per se, as long as it is conducted privately and as unobtrusively as possible, preferably away from any public venues and/or open social settings. I am, after all, an alumnus of the San Francisco Bay Area, which was formerly in the vanguard of so-called sexual liberation, back in the 50s and 60s. I associated with gays then as I do now, rather unremarkably, but paid them no particular attention, since they for the most part low-key and were merely part of ‘normal’ daily Bay Area life to me.

What I do highly resent is having such (to me) aberrant orientations literally forced upon me and others who may strongly disagree with them and consider them an unsuitable social norm to air in public. The presently growing contention involving our public schools openly advocating and even encouraging discussion of gender options and choices among very young school children particularly strikes me as both grossly inappropriate and completely wrong-headed, since impressionable children are too immature at that tender age to burden them with this highly complex sort of thing.

Futhermore, and as regards Barack Obama’s personal affairs, I will hasten to say that they are essentially NONE of my business UNLESS they are forced out into the open, thereupon demanding I be aware of them as an inquiring and concerned citizen. What happens in the privacy of one’s own home is one’s own business, after all, but when such things occur to individuals who are functioning as elected representatives of the people they govern, that is entirely another matter altogether!

In that sense, the original Obama ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy was, in my considered opinion, the preferable and correct one. By not ‘asking or telling’ anyone about one’s personal, private business, one is (again in my opinion) making the prudent decision to keep private matters private. Figuratively speaking, if one person wants to bugger another, that’s none of my business, but NOT in a public park or other open public social venue where that act may affect us all. These are important distinctions that the present, enthusiastic, over-the-top gay subculture wants us all to forget as they continue to steamroll over traditional norms and traditional conventions, without regard for how those attitudes may affect, disturb, upset or alienate (or even incite) others who do not share their progressively permissive, libertarian sexual philosophies.

I note that in his latest book vivisecting Washington’s ‘gay culture’, author James Kirchick makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of Larry Sinclair or his allegations of possible acts of aberrant sexual misconduct by our former 44th president (if any), but I feel that it is well past time to clarify all the contentiousness behind them once and for all, for the record and for the sake of preserving and maintaining the highest ethical standards of rectitude in our nation, if nothing else.

Hypocrisy is, after all, a traditional and well-established characteristic of America’s blue-nosed religious morality and it is all too common for us to bald-facedly perpetuate the fraud that we are, each of us, irreproachable and above such things, when in fact we are just as flawed and corrupted, each in our own way, as any other member of the species, PhDs, JDs and other admirably high-level life accomplishments notwithstanding.

Of course, such matters as that which has been aired here would be in other parts of the world regarded as nothing much to get upset about, but in a free and open (theoretically) society as is that found in America, the world’s greatest experiment in national governance, the business and affairs of those we elect as our representatives must be considered to be always and at all times subject to public scrutiny and fair and impartial analysis. Thus far, very little of this sort of attitudinal requisite has succeeded in our poisonously partisan nation and adversely political nation. I for one, would like to have Larry Sinclair’s admittedly shocking allegations investigated, fairly considered and put to rest, one way or another…but NOT by means of a duplicitous effort by political partisans (of either party) to suppress or ‘disappear’ them deceitfully by simply ignoring them or sweeping them under the progressive carpet.

---------------------------------

Books on this subject:

1) Barrack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies and Murder? book by Larry Sinclair, June 2009, available as a KINDLE book (hardcover and paperback very scarce and expensive to buy) on Amazon.

2) Rising Star, the Making of Barrack Obama, book by David J. Garrow, Wm. Morrow, 2017, (hardcover/paperback)

3) Secret City, the Hidden History of Gay Washington, book by James Kirchick, Holt & Co, 2022, (hardcover and KINDLE)

4) Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, book by Jack Cashill, Post Hill Press, 2020, (hardcover/KINDLE)

Articles on this subject:

1) Turns Out Michelle Wasn’t Barrack’s ‘First’ Lady, article in New York Post, 3 May 2017.

2) Barack Obama: America’s First ‘Gay’ President?, article appearing in the HUFF POST, by Timothy Patrick McCarthy, 18 Mar 2010.

3) Promiscuous Facts: Barack Obama and Uncertain Knowledge, article by Gary Alan Fine, PhD, Psychology Today, 10 Feb 2012.

4) A Capital History, article/book review of the new book ‘Secret City’ by Bruce Bawer, Commentary Magazine, May 2022