New York Slimes Ignored Barack Obama’s 15 Unpaid Parking Tickets

New York Times Ignored 15 Unpaid Tickets Of Obama In 2007 – American Thinker

.
…………

.
You can’t get much more hypocritical than the New York Times, which acted as a megaphone for the oppo research efforts of American Bridge, the pro-Hillary operation founded by David Brock. The “scandal” amounted to four traffic tickets for Marco Rubio over 18 years, puffed up by including his wife’s driving record into a headline of 17 violations for the couple.

The problem is that the Times studiously ignored the scofflaw behavior of Barack Obama, who ignored 15 outstanding parking tickets until his run for the presidency forced him to clean up his record. Fire Andrea Mitchell reports:

Funny how this pitiful New York Times fails to release that Obama had 15 outstanding parking tickets dating back to the 1980’s. King Obama didn’t pay off these 15 parking tickets until just before he launched his presidential campaign in 2007. Ironic isn’t it? Remember State Department’s airhead Jen Psaki? She was a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign back in 2007 and dismissed the tickets as not relevant. But Rubio’s are according to the left wing media, just remember that.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.

The Illinois Senator shelled out $375 in January – two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign – to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.

The story was first reported Wednesday by The Somerville News.

Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, mostly for parking in a bus stop, parking without a resident permit and failing to pay the meter, records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show.

He incurred $140 in fines and $260 in late fees in Cambridge in all, but he paid $25 for two of the tickets in February 1990.

Note that Rubio did not ignore his tickets, nor did he try to use political influence to fix them. In contrast, Obama was a scofflaw. And that attitude toward the law has been reflected in his behavior in office, ignoring the Constitutional limitations on his power. He is a scofflaw of the law that governs the government.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Regime Granted Amnesty To Accused Child-Sex Criminal

Amnesty Granted To Child Molesting Camp Counselor Known As ‘Papa Bear’ – Daily Caller

.

.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knew last year that an illegal alien California camp counselor known as “Papa Bear” was being investigated on child molestation and child pornography charges but did nothing about it, Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley claims in a letter sent to DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson on Wednesday.

Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested May 7 and charged with four felonies including child molestation and the distribution of child pornography. According to local news reports, authorities believe that Covarrubias-Padilla also produced child pornography.

Covarrubias-Padilla recently worked as a night counselor at Walden West, an environmental science camp near San Jose. Besides the recovery of 600 child porn images from his computer, Covarrubias-Padilla has been accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy. The Santa Clara County Office of Education told Grassley’s office that it had received over 100 phone calls and 50 emails from parents concerned that their child may have been victimized. Covarrubias-Padilla worked at two other camps over the past two years.

In his letter to Johnson, Grassley stated that whistleblowers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — a DHS sub-agency — claim that the federal authorities knew as early as Nov. 17 that Covarrubias-Padilla was being investigated for child sex abuse charges.

Yet, nothing was done about his DACA status until his recent arrest, Grassley claims.

The whistleblowers claim that on Oct. 8, 2012, Covarrubias-Padilla applied for amnesty protection under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. His amnesty and work eligibility were scheduled to last through this month, at which point he would have been allowed to re-apply for the program.

“These allegations are deeply troubling because, if true, they suggest that DHS was aware for months or years that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla posed a public safety threat to the children he was monitoring, yet took no action to revoke his DACA authorization,” Grassley, a Republican, wrote to Johnson.

“These allegations are particularly alarming because they suggest that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla would not have been placed in a position to abuse and exploit children had DHS properly vetted DACA recipients,” Grassley added.

Grassley has recently shed light on other cases involving felonious DACA recipients. One particular egregious case of DHS failure was Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez. Rangel-Hernandez was slated for deportation following a 2012 marijuana charge. He applied for amnesty under DACA in Feb. 2013, and his application was approved in Aug. 2013. But the application was approved even though U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) was aware that Rangel-Hernandez was gang-affiliated. Gang members are not eligible for DACA status.

After Grassley raised questions about Rangel-Hernandez’s case, USCIS admitted in a response letter that it erred in approving his DACA application and ensured that steps were taken to prevent gang members from being given amnesty in the future.

In his latest letter to Johnson, Grassley asked 11 questions about Covarrubias-Padilla’s DACA application, immigration status, and known criminal history.

He asked for a response by May 29.

Grassley also sought information on how ICE and USCIS coordinated and shared information about Covarrubias-Padilla.

“Did USCIS know or have reason to know that ICE was investigating Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla in connection to crimes involving either possession or distribution of child pornography or child exploitation, including molestation?” Grassley asked.

“If Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation by ICE, please provide the procedures in place for when, and in what manner, ICE would have notified USCIS.”

.

.

*VIDEO* Barack Chamberlain Obama


.

.

Ben Carson Calls Barack Obama A Psychopath

Ben Carson: President Obama Is A ‘Psychopath’ – Daily Caller

.

.
Ben Carson thinks President Obama is a “psychopath.”

In a new GQ profile of the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, reporter Jason Zengerle shares an unguarded moment with Carson, during which the famed neurosurgeon called President Barack Obama a “psychopath” for his ability to shamelessly lie to the American people.

Carson reportedly went off on the president after his adviser Armstrong Williams said the president “looks good” during his State of the Union address.

“Like most psychopaths. That’s the way they look, they all look great,” Carson replied.

“He’s gotta convince people to believe him,” Williams reportedly responded, “That’s all he’s doing: selling his narrative.”

“But he knows he’s telling a lie!” Carson said. “He’s trying to sell what he thinks is not true! He’s sitting there saying, ‘These Americans are so stupid, I can tell them anything.’”

Williams seemed to recognize the comments might be controversial and told Carson not to repeat them during an interview later. “We don’t have to call him a psychopath. I don’t want you to go to CNN with that kind of mood.”

.

.

*VIDEOS* Barack Obama’s Inept Middle East Policies


PART 1

.
PART 2

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Comments On Netanyahu’s Address To Congress


.

.

Now We Know Who To Believe On Iran (David Horovitz)

Now We Know Who To Believe On Iran – David Horovitz

.

.
In an op-ed on February 9, I suggested that Israel’s opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, should stand alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress on March 3, to underline “their common conviction that the regime in Tehran cannot be appeased and must be faced down.”

On Monday evening, as details of the looming US-led deal with Iran emerged from Geneva, Israel’s most respected Middle East affairs analyst, Channel 2 commentator Ehud Ya’ari, made precisely the same suggestion. So problematic are the reported terms of the deal, Ya’ari indicated, that Israel’s two leading contenders in the March 17 elections, Netanyahu and Herzog, need to put aside their differences and make plain to US legislators that the need to thwart such an accord crosses party lines in Israel and stands as a consensual imperative.

After anonymous sources in Jerusalem leaked to Israeli reporters in recent weeks the ostensible terms of the deal being hammered out, various spokespeople for the Obama administration contended that the Netanyahu government was misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends. They sneered that Israel didn’t actually know what the terms were. And they made the acknowledgement – the astounding acknowledgement for a United States whose key regional ally is directly and relentlessly threatened with destruction by Iran – that the Obama administration is consequently no longer sharing with Jerusalem all sensitive details of the Iran talks.

And yet among the terms of the deal being reported by the Associated Press from Geneva on Monday are precisely those that were asserted in recent weeks by the Israeli sources, precisely those that were scoffed at by the Administration. Centrally, Iran is to be allowed to keep 6,500 centrifuges spinning, and there will be a sunset clause providing for an end to intrusive inspections in some 10-15 years. If anything, indeed, some of the terms reported by the AP are even more worrying than those that were leaked in Jerusalem: “The idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement,” the AP said, “gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment program and slowly easing economic sanctions.” There is also no indication of restrictions on Iran’s missile development – its potential delivery systems.

In his TV commentary on Monday night, Ya’ari highlighted that the deal could further embolden Iran as it expands its influence throughout this region, and he noted that the isolation of Iran even by Israel’s key allies was already cracking, with the firmly pro-Israel foreign minister of Australia, Julie Bishop, announcing an imminent visit to Tehran – the first Australian foreign minister to make such a trip in a decade.

Ya’ari also noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it lacks the tools to effectively monitor the kind of nuclear program that Iran will be allowed to maintain under the emerging deal – incapable, that is, of ensuring that Iran does not fool the West as it has done in the past.

The devil of such deals is generally in the detail. But the devil, here, is in the principle as well — the principle that the P5+1 is about to legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state. From there, it will be capable of rapidly breaking out to the bomb, well aware that the international community lacks the will to stop it.

The Obama administration would evidently like to believe that 10-15 years from now, the ayatollahs will be gone, Iran will have a different leadership, and the threat of what Netanyahu has repeatedly called “the most dangerous regime in the world attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world” will have passed.

But if the deal now taking shape is indeed finalized, the chances of the regime being ousted from within, or effectively confronted from without, will drastically recede. This deal, indeed, will help cement the ayatollahs in power, with dire consequences for Israel, relatively moderate Arab states, and the free world.

It goes without saying that this weekend’s developments in Geneva have only bolstered Netanyahu’s determination to sound the alarm before Congress next Tuesday. It’s also still clearer today why the Obama administration has been so anxious to query his motives and seek to discredit his concerns.

I headlined my February 9 op-ed “Who to believe on Iran: Obama or Netanyahu?” I think we know now.

.

.