If Florida U. S. Senator Marco Rubio wasn’t popular, if he wasn’t within a political hair of pulling away from the Republican gaggle of presidential candidates, if Rubio wasn’t blessed with having only 2 percent of Republicans stating they could never vote for him (59 percent say they could never vote for Donald Trump), we wouldn’t know about his fire-breathing law-breaking career on Florida streets and highways.
If one wants a big deal, why doesn’t the New York Times continue its otherwise outstanding stories about the highly suspicious financial peccadillos committed by former President Bill Clinton and Former Secretary of State Clinton under tax-exempt cover at the Clinton foundation?
The New York Times (full disclosure, this writer was on the New York Times payroll for several years as a writer) has seen fit to live up to accusations that it is an in-house campaign organ for former Senator, former Secretary of State and grand loser to newcomer Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton.
It did so by publishing a story about Senator Rubio receiving FOUR, count them, four, traffic tickets since 1997 in Florida.
The Times says that it dug out the “story” by hiring a "third party" to dig through court records.
However, that explanation is countered by evidence unearthed by the independent Washington Beacon that representatives of the Clinton opposition group – American Bridge – run by Clinton “achichinqle” (gofer) David Brock and financed by ultra-liberal Hungarian immigrant George Soros actually did the research in Florida court records, not anyone from the New York Times.
Back to Senator Rubio’s driving record. Four tickets in almost 20 years, BIG DEAL. If one wants a big deal, why doesn’t the New York Times continue its otherwise outstanding stories about the highly suspicious financial peccadillos committed by former President Bill Clinton and Former Secretary of State Clinton under tax-exempt cover at the Clinton foundation?
Where are the stories on how Swedish interests pumped $26 million into the foundation while they were lobbying Mrs. Clinton on proposed economic sanctions against Iran that were injurious to those Swedish interests? Where are more stories about Bill Clinton being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Russian (Mafia?) companies to apparently help grease the way for Clinton Canadian intimate friends and friends of V. Putin in Moscow to rake in millions of dollars in profits derived from American uranium mining?
The New York Times has the resources to tell America if those Moscow companies are, in fact, criminal enterprises that paid Bill Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars directly. It may be that Bill Clinton also would like to know if he is being paid by criminal enterprises for influence with his public servant wife. Enquiring minds want to know.
The New York Times also has the resources to investigate Hillary Clinton’s newfound passion for early voting and for voting by non-eligible students in college towns or for people too lazy to prove their citizenship in securing a state-issued identification card or driver’s license.
As Secretary of State, Clinton was foursquare behind denying citizenship and passports to Mexican-Americans born along the border with midwife help because they didn’t have government-issued birth certificates. Now that she is running for president – again – she is attacking Republicans for supporting voting by identity-proved people only and demands more voting time and days before election day when in her own state, New York, offers none.
Hillary Clinton and the New York Times need to be called out for, in her case, naked race-baiting in an effort to raise black voter hackles against Republicans for alleged “racist” motives in “restricting” some black voters.
The New York Times joins her in race-baiting by attacking Hispanic America’s political Wonder Boy who is turning heads everywhere as a viable and popular candidate for President. Traffic tickets? If his name was Smith, would the Times have printed this story?
Consider Secretary Clinton called out for her ridiculous charges at Texas Southern University about alleged Republican conspiracies to restrict Black voters when, in fact, Blacks in ID-required Georgia voted in record numbers after having to show picture IDs. While she received extensive coverage for her ridiculous charges, the media forgot to mention that Texas Southern is a traditionally black institution left over from Jim Crow days. She could never make that charge if she made it at her alma mater, Yale.
As for The New York Times, why would it box itself into the Clinton campaign when it so courageously published the initial coverage of financial curiosities of the Clinton Foundation and the millions of dollars paid directly to former President Clinton by people obviously seeking influence with his wife, the then Secretary of State?
Where is the Rubio-like bottom-feeding article about Bill Clinton being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Canadian sources heavily supporting the controversial Keystone Pipeline from Canada that Hillary’s State Department approved after her husband was paid “mucho dinero” for a phony speech a tenth-grader could give? Where?