Tag Archives: 1999

Michelle Obama book answers questions?, Why you “relinquished” law license?, Seen copy of certified original birth certificate?, Where was Barack November 4, 1999?, Why TUCC Jeremiah Wright church?, Why Barack publisher stated Kenya?

Michelle Obama book answers questions?, Why you “relinquished” law license?, Seen copy of certified original birth certificate?, Where was Barack November 4, 1999?, Why TUCC Jeremiah Wright church?, Why Barack publisher stated Kenya?

“Why was Barack Obama absent from the opening session of the IL Senate on November 4, 1999?”…Citizen Wells

“In both conversations with Obama for America and AKP Message & Media, I explained that on November 6, 1999, I had been introduced to Barack Obama by a friend and that Obama had, in fact, sold me an eight-ball of cocaine and had himself engaged in smoking crack cocaine in my limo on that date and again in my hotel room the following day.”…Larry Sinclair, “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder”

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND



We are all awaiting the release of Michelle Obama’s new book “Becoming.”

Certainly it will contain the usual candor and honesty we have come to expect from the Obamas.

Listed below are perhaps the top 5 questions that many of us have wanted answers to:

  1. Why did Michelle Obama ‘relinquish” her law license? Law school is years of hard work and passing the bar exam is no easy matter. So why would she give it up after so much effort? It is believed that Barack surrendered his law license to avoid having it taken for documented lies on his application.
  2. Michelle, have you seen a certified copy of an original birth certificate for Barack? We have not. The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov was not. It was not a certified copy of an original because Hawaiian birth certificates did not look like that at the time of his birth. At the bottom of that document it states “or abstract.” If it is indeed an official HI document, it does not prove birth there. Only that data was pulled from documents recording birth somewhere. Many believe it was faked.
  3. Michelle, where was your husband on November 4, 1999 the opening session of the IL legislature in Springfield? Larry Sinclair alleged a drug and sex encounter with Barack in November 1999.
  4. Why did you attend Jeremiah Wright’s church TUCC? Was it for the  “Down Low Club at Trinity?”“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.“He kept his eye on the young guys coming up in Trinity,” she said, “and if he spotted someone that acted or looked gay, then Wright would give them kind of a guidance counselor-type direction on how to keep down low – how to do the things they wanted to do, but then also getting married and looking ‘respectable’ – being part of black society.”  WND October 2, 2012.
  5. Why did Barack’s publisher list his place of birth as Kenya?


By the way Michelle, no one is disputing that Barack is a citizen.

The standard for POTUS is Natural Born Citizen.

You must have learned that in law school.


More here:




Hillary Clinton must be stopped, Truth about Clintons, Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity the most corrupt administration in the history of the country continues with no end in sight, Christopher Ruddy July 1, 1999

Hillary Clinton must be stopped, Truth about Clintons, Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity the most corrupt administration in the history of the country continues with no end in sight, Christopher Ruddy July 1, 1999

“If the guilty and unrepentant get off easy, what type of
prosecution is this. It’s not time to blame the Independent
Counsel Law; blame the prosecutor who wouldn’t do his job.
Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity, the most corrupt
administration in the history of the country continues with
no end in sight. God save us all.”…Christopher Ruddy, NewsMax July 1, 1999

“Hillary Clinton likewise displayed an obsession with Foster’s death, for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained. The obstruction of any and all serious efforts to probe Foster’s death remained the highest priority of Hillary’s Shadow Team for years.”…Joseph Farah, WND, July 15, 2005

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”



We will probably never find out the truth about how Vincent Foster died in the first year of the Clinton Administration in 1993.

But we can find and reveal much of the truth about the Clintons.

We can stop Hillary Clinton from taking the White House again.

From WND July 15, 2005.

“For years, major media had painted Starr as a ruthless Republican partisan, a Christian fanatic consumed with moral outrage against the Clintons. Why, then, would Starr tell an influential Democrat operative that he wanted to socialize with the Clintons? And what was he doing chumming around with Democrat operatives in the first place?

The story revealed a side of Starr which mass media had carefully concealed during the five years he served as independent counsel. It gave us a glimpse of the real Ken Starr.”

“Rodriguez blew the whistle on Ken Starr in March 1995. But no one listened.

Starr hired Rodriguez in September 1994 to lead the grand jury investigation of Vincent Foster’s death. A Harvard Law School graduate with a keen interest in civil-rights cases, Rodriguez was, as NewsMax.com founder Christopher Ruddy wrote in “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster,” “a bohemian among law enforcement types – the only federal prosecutor who wore a pony-tail.”

“He had no ideological investment in the matter,” writes British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in “The Secret Life of Bill Clinton.” “Indeed, when he arrived from California with his ponytail, his earring, and his leather jackets, there were comments among the hard-liners that Kenneth Starr had gone too far in his efforts to recruit Democrats, liberals and ethnic minorities to his team.”

The hard-liners were wrong. Rodriguez turned out to be an unusually honest and courageous public servant. He resigned in protest after less than six months on the job, calling the Foster probe a sham. Major media refused to run his story. His career stopped dead. Rodriguez returned to his old job of assistant U.S. attorney in Sacramento, where he remains to this day.”

“Ken Starr hired Miquel Rodriguez as lead prosecutor for the Vincent Foster investigation in September 1994. Soon after, Rodriguez was told that he was expected to back up the conclusion of the earlier Fiske report – that Foster had committed suicide. Rodriguez refused. He insisted on conducting a real investigation. But the harder he tried, the more resistance he got from Starr’s team.”

“I was told what the result [of the Starr investigation] was going to be from the get-go,” Rodriguez later said in a taped conversation, posted to the Internet. “This is all so much nonsense – I knew the result before the investigation began, that’s why I left. I don’t do investigations to justify a result.”

“On July 15, 1997, Ken Starr reached his inevitable conclusion. He issued a statement saying, “Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park, Va., on July 20, 1993.””

“Hillary Clinton likewise displayed an obsession with Foster’s death, for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained. The obstruction of any and all serious efforts to probe Foster’s death remained the highest priority of Hillary’s Shadow Team for years.”

Read more:


As you may know, I have been resurrecting articles by Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax about the Vince Foster death and investigations.

Here is another.

From NewsMax July 1, 1999 via Mail-Archive.com.

Kenneth Starr – The Clintons’ Accomplice

Christopher Ruddy
July 1, 1999

The Independent Counsel law lapsed last night at midnight.
And Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr said the law should not
be re-authorized.

Obviously, Starr believes that, because his own investigation
was a waste of tens of millions of dollars, the Independent
Counsel law should be trashed.

The truth is that the Independent Counsel law is a good law.
When corruption has been rooted out in places like France and
Italy, it has usually been the result of an independent
magistrate — their version of our Independent Counsel.

We also know that when Independent Counsels like Donald
Schmalz and Daniel Pearson did their jobs, the Clintons were
in a high state of panic and used every possible means to
stop them. We know that Bill Clinton has been fearful of
another Independent Counsel being assigned to investigate
Chinagate, allegations that he took Chinese campaign cash
and gave away nuclear secrets.

The law should stay. It’s Ken Starr who must go. A weak,
pathetic character, he has more responsibility than any other
man in American history for the woe the Clintons have, and
will wreak, on America.
The Hubbell Deal

Just how pitiful Starr’s “prosecution” has been was
demonstrated this week when Webster Hubbell admitted to
committing a felony by misleading federal investigators,
and a misdemeanor by failing to pay taxes.

Any normal citizen would have been jailed and fined for such
crimes. Not Webster Hubbell. Under Starr’s plea agreement,
Hubbell will be on parole and serve no jail time. He won’t
even pay any fine or restitution.

Worse, Webb Hubbell still doesn’t have to cooperate with
Starr in his investigation of the Clintons. Hubbell
continues to insist, “… I have no knowledge of any
wrongdoing on behalf of the president or Mrs. Clinton.”

Starr’s failure to seek Hubbell’s cooperation — a basic
condition of granting a plea agreement — violates the most
fundamental procedures followed by federal prosecutors.
But flouting procedure is nothing new for Starr.

In December of 1994, when Hubbell admitted to having bilked
his clients at the Rose Law Firm and evading taxes, Starr
purposefully botched the plea agreement by not demanding
Hubbell’s cooperation. Starr’s actions so infuriated Starr’s
own trial attorney, Russell Hardin, that Hardin resigned.

Hardin was incensed that Starr planned on signing a plea
agreement without debriefing Hubbell as to what he knew and
how he would cooperate — a mandatory procedure for any plea

This time around, Starr simply made no pretense he would seek
Hubbell’s cooperation.

Just two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that Kenneth
Starr had decided not to seek indictments against Bill and
Hillary Clinton for crimes they had committed related to
Whitewater or related scandals. It’s hard to get indictments
if no one will talk. It’s nearly impossible to get people
to talk, if the prosecutor doesn’t pressure them.

As any honest prosecutor on Starr’s staff will admit, Starr
had long ago decided not to indict the Clintons, or for
that matter, any White House official. Some believe Starr
actually cut a deal with the Clintons soon after coming
Pet Worm

Ken Starr is Bill Clinton’s pet worm. Starr has played out a
role in the greatest Mutt and Jeff, Good Cop/Bad Cop routine
ever perpetrated on the American public.

Even good folks, who realize how bad the Clintons are, have
fallen victim to Starr’s charade, taken in by the propaganda
that Starr is the “tough, mean prosecutor” out to get the
President, just like James Carville says.

That’s simply a mirage, cooked up by the White House spin
What Nolanda Hill Told Me

Is it really possible that Bible-toting Ken Starr — arch
Republican, shirt-sleeve Christian, and Monica prosecutor
— is on the Clintons’ side?

Let me answer by relating this story:

As the long-time lover and business partner of Clinton
confidant Ron Brown, Nolanda Hill had intimate knowledge
of the inner workings of the Clinton White House.

As a result of Congressional complaints, Janet Reno was
forced to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate
Brown, his business dealings with Nolanda Hill, Brown’s
son Michael, and several other people.

The Independent Counsel in this case was Daniel Pearson from
Miami. Unlike Starr, Pearson and his deputy were no one’s
patsies. Instead of using Starr’s delaying tactics, Pearson
had, within months, built a strong case against Brown,
Brown’s son, and Hill. Nolanda Hill told me they were going
to be indicted.

Then Brown made a desperate bid to save himself. Just weeks
before his death on April 6, 1996 Brown met with Clinton at
the White House and made it clear he was not going to take
the fall for an administration rampant with corruption.
Brown wanted Clinton to handle Pearson the same way the
White House had handled Starr.

Handled Starr?

Hill explained. Starr was appointed Independent Counsel
in August of 1994, after the three-judge panel decided not
to appoint Robert Fiske. The Clinton White House publicly
expressed outrage that Starr, a “partisan” Republican, had
been selected as Independent Counsel.

That’s the way the Clintons wanted the world to see it.

In fact, Hill told me, “when Starr was appointed, they were
opening champagne bottles in the White House, they were
celebrating.” According to Hill, Starr has actually been
on Janet Reno’s short list for the post of Special Counsel
at the time she picked Robert Fiske.

“They would never had put him on the short list if they were
worried about him,” she said.

In his meeting with Clinton, Brown knew that Starr was under
the White House’s thumb. He pleaded with Clinton to do the
same with Pearson by having Reno interfere in Pearson’s
probe, and by ordering Justice Department attorneys on
Pearson’s staff to back off.

Brown also asked Clinton to have the FBI obstruct the Pearson
probe by withholding critical information. Brown, Hill said,
was well aware that FBI agents were not working for Ken Starr
in his Whitewater probe but for Reno and the White House,
giving the Clinton Administration de facto control over
the Starr investigations

According to Hill, Clinton told Brown not to worry.
“I’ll take care of it,” Clinton said.

Just weeks later, Brown’s plane mysteriously crashed into
the side of a mountain in Yugoslavia and the Pearson probe
was closed.
Starr Betrayed the Country

Starr’s inquiry has continued. This August will mark Starr’s
fifth anniversary as Independent Counsel. During his five
years on the job, the public has received more than enough
information to evaluate his performance.

There are dozens of examples of how Starr has betrayed the
American people and his oath as an independent counsel.
To cite a few:

— During the time Starr was investigating the Clintons,
Starr was working for a company wholly owned by China’s
Peoples Liberation Army and notorious arms dealer
Wang Jun.

— Starr hired Mark Tuohey as his Washington deputy. Tuohey
is a liberal Democrat close to the Clinton White House who
even threw a party at his home for Janet Reno. (It came
as no surprise that when Tuohey left Starr’s office, he
joined Vinson & Elkins, the law firm representing the
Rose Law Firm before Starr’s office.)

— Starr trashed a fundamental principle of American
jurisprudence: equality before the law. Starr created
a new and bizarre standard for deciding when to issue
indictments. Under Starr’s new formulation, ordinary
citizens and lower-level officials needed little evidence
of wrongdoing to warrant an indictment. But Starr raised
the bar absurdly high for White House officials. Thus
Starr’s office could indict a banker in Arkansas, but
Hillary Clinton would not be indicted for the exact same
offenses. This is nothing less than a grant of titles
and nobility for government officials, which is expressly
prohibited by the Constitution and a major reason why we
fought the Revolutionary War.

— Miquel Rodriguez, Starr’s lead prosecutor in the case of
Vincent Foster, resigned rather than be part of a
cover-up. Starr’s out-and-out cover-up of Vince Foster’s
death began with his wholehearted acceptance of the report
issued by Robert Fiske. Key witnesses, such as several
Arkansas troopers who said they knew of Foster’s death
hours before the White House did, were never put before
a grand jury.

— Starr’s prosecution of the Lewinsky case was a wild
goose chase. He had no original jurisdiction to
investigate this matter, and only did so at Janet Reno’s
request. Starr waited nearly eight months to sign a
plea agreement with Monica. In essence, she never really
cooperated against the Clintons at all, claiming to this
day that Clinton “never told me to lie; no one offered me
a job …”

Still, some Starr fanatics argue that Starr did pursue the
Lewinsky matter and seek Clinton’s impeachment. I ask:
So what?

When the Lewinsky scandal broke, I accurately illustrated,
in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, what would happen. Starr
would delay his scathing report on Lewinsky, which would be
so damaging to Clinton that it might even call for his

And Starr’s report was delayed and issued at the end of the
year, pushing the impeachment vote until after the elections
and saving Clinton again. Throughout the Lewinsky matter
it became clear that Starr was creating a diversion for
Clinton’s real crimes; Clinton would never be removed from
office over a sex scandal.

Most egregious of all was Starr’s mishandling of key
Whitewater witnesses David Hale and Jim McDougal. Hale
spent some 18 months in prison and was punished with huge
restitution demands — even though he was the chief
cooperating witness.

McDougal, who also cooperated, was sent to federal prison and
was apparently murdered when prison officials purposefully
withheld life-sustaining medications.

But convicted criminals like Webb Hubbell and former Arkansas
Governor Jim Guy Tucker, who both stubbornly refused to
cooperate, got off easy. Tucker never served one day in

If the guilty and unrepentant get off easy, what type of
prosecution is this. It’s not time to blame the Independent
Counsel Law; blame the prosecutor who wouldn’t do his job.
Because of Kenneth W. Starr’s complicity, the most corrupt
administration in the history of the country continues with
no end in sight. God save us all.”


Mr. Ruddy, how do you go from making the last statement to lauding the Clintons and donating to their foundation?

November 4 1999, Obama records, Obama not in senate November 4, 1999, Russert, Lynn Sweet, Chicago Tribune, truth about Obama

We need to know the truth about Barack Obama. We need to know where Obama was on November 4, 1999. We need to know where Obama was and what he was doing during his term in the Illinois Senate. When I first read the allegations of Larry Sinclair, I was very skeptical. I am still somewhat skeptical. However, I went to the records of the Illinois Senate for November 4, 1999 and Barack Obama was not present. Sinclair alleges that he had 2 encounters with Obama from November 3 to November 8 1999. The first encounter was allegedly in a rented limo and involved drugs and gay sex. This alone was not a red flag for me but when you couple this information with Obama’s known association with criminals, with racists and hate mongers and his failure to provide his records while in the Illinois Senate, there is a legitimate need to get straight answers from Obama.

Here is what we know about Obama:

Obama received campaign contributions from Tony Rezko and was involved in a real estate transaction involving Rezko and his wife.

Obama had a long time association with racist, anti semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Obama has consistently evaded requests for information, lied about not knowing of pastor Wright’s comments and acted in a hypocritical manner such as when he condemned Don Imus in 2007.

Obama has made hypocritical comments about open access to records:

From the democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on Oct. 30, Obama said to Clinton: “We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.”

November 3 2007. The Obama campaign sent out a letter  pressing Clinton to release her White House schedules before the Iowa caucuses.

“Fully releasing these records is in keeping with the spirit of the process that makes the Iowa caucus so special,”

 Lynn Sweet, a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times states:

“Instead, since I have some reporting history here, I am noting a pattern that has emerged: This is Obama’s third ethical conversion of convenience — taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.”

From a Chicago Tribune interview of November 12, 2007:

“The status of any government records Sen. Barack Obama might still have from his time as a state lawmaker in Springfield has come up as he has repeatedly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for how slowly records from her husband’s administration have been released.

In a Tribune interview Thursday, the Illinois Democrat said he had no intention of sharing any of the documents he might still have in his possession.”

Next are the questions asked and responses from Obama. I know that many people have read this, but it is worth repeating:

“Q: It is kind of unknown where some of the records from your time in Springfield are located. Where is that stuff, what do you have?

“We had one district director. I had one staff person, so, you know, we didn’t have some elaborate sort of system. I didn’t at my disposal millions of dollars and potentially multiple staff people to conduct an archive. Now keep in mind, it is apples and oranges. First of all, I’m not the one who has made this an issue. We saw during the debate, Senator Clinton was asked about it and the suggestion was somehow they’ve done all they could. And my simple point was, I don’t think there is some smoking gun in these archives or something, or some damning evidence. The only point that I’ve made is that, you know, Senator Clinton continues to base her claim on experience, in part, in substantial part, on her role as first lady, because if her, you know, experience was just based on her tenure as an elected official, it’s thinner than mine. So, I think it’s fair for people to ask, you know, what exactly was she doing, if that’s a substantial claim that she is making. So, I’m not interested in playing a game of gotcha, where I think there is evidence of something. I’m assuming most of this stuff is pretty mundane, you know, stuff. But what we do know is that she was involved in health care. Based on the questions you just asked me, or [New York Times reporter Jeff] Zeleny just asked me today, there’s this sense of, well, yeah, I was in charge of health care, but the fact that it didn’t work out, wasn’t my fault. That, we’ve at least got a public record that she was involved. From that point forward, we really have no idea what she was involved in. And so, you know, what I think, what I think, is not, doesn’t make sense is to say, to able to take credit for whatever Clinton Administration successes that she wants, and then selectively distance herself from any Clinton Administration failures, and not have some sort of public record that allows people to get a sense of that. Now, my sense is that this is information that, if they wanted to accelerate the process, so that it was available before this election, they could get it out there.”

Q: What about your stuff, though? What do you have?

“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”

Q: You must have kept some stuff. Correspondence, calendars?

“The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where’s this or where’s that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don’t want to mislead people. I don’t know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator.””

Read more from the Chicago Tribune:


The following is from Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times on November 11, 2007:

“On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”

Sweet wrote that he replied: “Nobody has requested specific documents.”

But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”

And Sweet wrote of her own paper, “The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama’s papers.””

“RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said of Obama’s reticence on records: “Barack Obama is a rookie senator with few accomplishments. Perhaps he’s reluctant to inform the public about his activities in Springfield because they demonstrate a lack of leadership at a state level as well.””

“An Obama spokesman, Ben LaBolt, last week declined to say where Obama’s records from his years in the Illinois State Senate are located. There is no law mandating the state to archive the records. The records from Obama’s office — if he kept them — would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc.”

“Obama’s campaign has refused to identify the biggest bundlers, people who are raising at least $200,000 for him and are given membership in his National Finance Council. Obama, as all major candidates, declines most of the time to disclose details about most fund-raising events.”

“Sometimes Obama has come late to the game. He did not stop taking rides on subsidized corporate jets until the week he was tapped to be the Democrats’ chief spokesman on ethics in January 2006. In 2005, Obama took 23 such private aircraft flights, some to attend fund-raisers he headlined. In 2006, Obama led the fight to ban lawmakers from taking cut-rate private air travel.”

“Obama has supported more earmark disclosure to bolster government transparency. Last June, Obama disclosed the earmarks he requested for Illinois and national interests. However, his office, after repeated requests since June, has yet to disclose earmarks Obama sought in 2006, before he was running for president.”

Read more from Lynn Sweet here:


Tim Russert interviewed Barack Obama on November 11, 2007. During part of the interview Russert asked Obama about supplying records. Here is that segment:

“MR. RUSSERT:  You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?

SEN. OBAMA:  Tim, we did not keep those records.  I…

MR. RUSSERT:  Are they gone?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, let’s be clear.  In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois.  The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule.  I didn’t have a schedule.  I was a state senator.  I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library.  I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.  So…

MR. RUSSERT:  But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?

SEN. OBAMA:  I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now.  And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.

MR. RUSSERT:  Is your schedule available anywhere?  Are—the records exist?

SEN. OBAMA:  I—Tim, I kept my own schedule.  I didn’t have a scheduler.

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Durbin, your colleague, publishes his schedule each day.  Would you do that?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.”

To read more of the Tim Russert interview click here:


Obama said, “I didn’t have a schedule.” What kind of evasive answer is that? Everyone has a schedule.

Larry Sinclair’s allegation means almost nothing in a vacuum. However, when you look at the big picture, the picture that appears from all of the puzzle pieces, a scary picture emerges. Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. He has to be held to a high standard. It is time for some answers and information.

Obama must provide records.

Where was Obama on November 4, 1999?

November 4 1999, Where was Obama November 4, 1999, Obama absent from Illinois Senate, Obama’s name on 2 bills

Where was Barack Obama on November 4, 1999? Obama was not present in the Illinois Senate on November 4. Obama’s name was on 2 bills of record on November 4, 1999. There have been allegations by Larry Sinclair that he and Obama used drugs and engaged in gay sex between November 3 and November 8, 1999. There allegedly was an encounter in a rented limo and another encounter.

As important as a senate session is, especially when one’s name is attached to 2 bills, there must be an important reason for missing the senate session and a record of the reason. I would like to hear from Barack Obama or his campaign or anyone else with documented knowledge of Barack Obama’s whereabouts on November 4, 1999. Once I receive conclusive proof, I will post it.