Two More People (Mark Mayfield & Richard Sager) Arrested and Charged in Photo Case of Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-MS) Bedridden Wife Rose

TWO MORE ARRESTS IN THE CLASSLESS EXPLOITATION OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN’S BEDRIDDEN WIFE.

Attorney Mark Mayfield, a vice chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party and an officer with the Central Mississippi Tea Party, and Richard Sager were arrested Thursday by Madison, Mississippi  police in connection with the Rose Cochran photo scandal. Mayfield, a real estate attorney, was arrested and charged with conspiracy. Richard Sager was charged with evidence tampering and conspiracy. Mayfield and Sager appeared in court Thursday where Madison Municipal Judge Dale Danks set his bond at $250,000 for Mayfield and $250,000 per count per count for Sager, who faces one charge of conspiracy and one charge of tampering with evidence.

16 WAPT’s Scott Simmons has learned that two people are facing charges in connection with the case. One of the two is Mark Mayfield, who is a member of the board of directors for the Central Mississippi Tea Party, said Madison County District Attorney Michael Guest.

Mayfield, a real estate attorney, was arrested Thursday by the Madison Police Department. Mayfield is charged with conspiracy.

Richard Sager, of Laurel, was also arrested Thursday, Guest said. Sager is charged with evidence tampering and conspiracy.

Clayton Kelly was arrested Friday and is charged with exploitation, filming without permission and conspiracy. He’s accused of taking photos of Rose Cochran at St. Catherine’s Village, the nursing home where she has lived for 13 years.

Erick Erickson of Red State reports that Tea Partiers can be idiots, but the McDaniel camp was not involved and then comes the money line, “There you have it. But way to go tea party types for largely sabotaging a campaign you support.” And there you have it, a note to the Tea Party folks … you have to act far and away better than establishment Democrats and Republicans because you do one thing wrong and all will be branded. You do not get the benefit of the establishment because of their ability to cover up corruption and conspiracies and in the case of Democrats, have the MSM run cover for you. Of course there still remains the question of what on earth was there to gain by exploiting the bedridden, nursing home resident wife of a senator who suffers from progressive dementia. Talk about poor judgement and a questionable thought process.

Michael Guest, the district attorney for Madison and Rankin counties, told Simmons that he doesn’t believe anyone with the McDaniel campaign is involved.

70% of Americans Support Voter ID Laws, Including 51% of Blacks … Why Are Democrats Lawmakers & Obama Against the Will of the American People and Preventing Voter Fraud?

So I guess Democrat law makers and co-called Black leaders would tell you that 70% of Americans are racist.

According to a recent Fox News Poll, 70% of Americans polled agree that there should be voter ID laws passed that required an valid state or federal photo identification in order to be allowed to vote. The survey found that a majority of every demographic supported such a law, including 91% of Republicans, 66% of Independents and even 55% of Democrats. However, many Democratic lawmakers, Black activists and organizations are opposed to strict voter identification laws, claiming they are largely unnecessary and discourage minority voting. They even claim those that would want such a law are hateful, racist and only looking to suppress the minority vote. Of course one needs a valid state or federal ID to cash a check, board an airplane, buy alcohol, obtain a driver’s license at the DMV, any banking transaction including opening an account, obtain SSI disability, buy a gun, donating blood, buy cigarettes, get a US passport, attain unemployment benefits, obtaining a carry gun permit, adopt a child and even buy Sudafed from your local pharmacy. But some how requiring one to do something as important as vote is a burden to minorities. Here is the money line to the poll, 51% of African Americans support voter ID laws, while 46% oppose the laws. Does this mean that the 51% of blacks are racist?

Seven in 10 registered voters are in favor of identification laws in order to root out fraud at the ballot box, according to a Fox News poll released this week.

The survey found majority support in every major demographic, including black voters and Democrats.

The 70 percent who support voter ID laws remains largely unchanged in the past few years. Another 27 percent believe the laws are unnecessary.

The issue has resurfaced recently as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Republicans should not go too crazy over the law because they are offending people, African-Americans in particular.

He later clarified he believes the laws should not be a defining issue for Republicans, and they should be left up to the states to decide. A total of 31 states have active voter identification laws, while a handful of others have recently been struck down in state courts.

The survey found majorities of every demographic support the law. Ninety-one percent of Republicans offer support, and 66 percent of independents feel the same.

Doesn’t make one wonder why when pretty much everything in this country requires a photo ID, including to buy, own and carry a gun (a right protected in the US Constitution) that making sure that there are fair elections with no fraud would be opposed by Democrats? So are they pro-voter fraud? But then again, this is coming from the party that is perfectly fine with letting illegals into the United States and then letting them out of jail after committing crimes. If individuals think that minorities cannot some how get a photo ID, maybe something needs to be looked into that as a problem, rather than calling voter ID laws racist.

As stated at TPPN, “All in all, the case against voter ID laws is not only flimsy, it’s downright laughable in its ridiculousness.”

VP Joe Biden Takes Shot at Clintons in SC … Unraveling of Middle Class Financial Security Began in “the Later Years of the Clinton Administration,” Not Under GWB

Is Biden going to run for Democrat nominee for president in 2016?

Vice President Joe Biden speaking at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, SC took a swipe at the Clinton’s and did the unthinkable for a Democrat, did not blame George W. Bush. Biden said to the group in the key primary state of South Carolina, the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush.

Vice President Joe Biden gave a closed-door speech Friday to South Carolina Democrats that included a shot at the Clintons.

Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.

Speaking for more than thirty minutes at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, S.C., he addressed the prominant group of attendees in the key presidential primary state.

In recent months, the vice president has focused on revving up liberals on issues of income inequality, as he prepares for a possible run against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though many Democrats don’t think he’d run against her.

“He said we have some of the most productive workers in the world, but corporations are more concerned about their stockholders than they are about their employees,” one attendee said. “He talked about how the fruits of labor go to stockholders, rather than to the people who are producing it. That the people making the money in this country are the corporations.”

Another attendee described it as “a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech.”

Hillary Clinton’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists … But, Hillary Called the Abduction of the Girls by Boko Haram was “Abominable, It’s Criminal, It’s an Act of Terrorism”

HOW PRESIDENTIAL … Hillary Clinton, I was for not calling Boko Haram terrorists, before I was for it.

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. In the wake of the Muslim Islamist terror group Boko Haram kidnapping nearly 300 girls and threatening to sell them into human sex slavery, Hillary Clinton like many jumped on the bandwagon of outrage. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton called the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria. Clinton went on to say that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism.

Oh contraire mon frère … Hillary Clinton supposedly urged the Nigerian government to do more on counter-terrorism, but as reported at The Daily Beast, Hillary’s State Department refused to brand Boko Haram as terrorists. According to accounts by Josh Rogin, what Hillary Clinton failed to mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal of branding  Boko Haram as terrorists came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.But of course naming a new group to the terrorist list would have gone against Obama’s reelection talking points that al Qaeda was on the run.

As the folks at Hot Air opines,“Sound familiar? … Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance.”

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.

But of course Clinton’s response to these questions will be, we have 300 girls threatened to be sold into sex slavery, what difference does it make that Boko Haram are terrorists.

After All These Years Monica Lewinsky Writes About Her Affair with President Bill Clinton, “Sure, My Boss Took Advantage of Me, …” (Update: Lynne Cheney Ponders Hillary Clinton’s Involvement in Realease of Article)

Just curious, if some one is taken advantage of, can it really be consensual?

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky writes for the first time about her affair with President Bill Clinton … “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” Lewinsky says that she regrets what happened between herself and President Clinton, but insists it was consensual.  However, she also pens that Bill Clinton also took advantage of her … ““Sure, my boss took advantage of me.” Which begs the question, how can something really be consensual when there is a position of authority and that individual takes advantage of it?

It’s rather comical to read responses from the MSM like CNN, Stop judging Monica Lewinsky, stating “they could learn a few things from Monica Lewinsky,” when they were at the top of the list who Lewinsky references when her abuse came in the aftermath that were able to brand her.

ABC News – VIDEO

Monica Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair for the first time about her affair with President Clinton: “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” She also says: “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”

After 10 years of virtual silence (“So silent, in fact,” she writes, “that the buzz in some circles has been that the Clintons must have paid me off; why else would I have refrained from speaking out? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth”), Lewinsky, 40, says it is time to stop “tiptoeing around my past—and other people’s futures. I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)”

Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults, Lewinsky writes that it was the public humiliation she suffered in the wake of the scandal that permanently altered the direction of her life: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”

The Washington Free Beacon:

Karl in particular cited Lewinsky’s reaction to the Diane Blair papers, first reported by The Washington Free Beacon. Hillary Clinton, according to Blair’s documents, referred to the former White House intern as a “narcissistic loony tune” and partially blamed herself for the affair. Lewinsky wrote she found Hillary Clinton’s impulse to blame the “woman” for President Clinton’s transgressions “troubling”

Of course we all remember Bubba and his infamous statement of I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, not a single time. So in the end, Monica Lewinsky was branded and Bill Clinton is looked upon as the elder statesman of the Democrat party.

EXIT QUESTION: Who finds this a bit too convenient coming out this far away from a potential 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run in of all magazines, Vanity Fair? Why do I think this article got Hillary’s blessing before it was released to print?

UPDATE I: Lynne Cheney Suggests Hillary Approved Monica Piece to ‘Get It Out of the Way’.

With Hillary Clinton almost assuredly running for president in 2016, Monica Lewinsky‘s Vanity Fair piece today set off a lot of people’s conspiratorial alarm bells, with some suspicion anti-Clinton forces might have been behind it. But on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Lynne Cheney suggested it might have actually been pushed by Clinton’s team themselves.

click on pic to watch VIDEO, screen grab FOX News

UPDATE II: Lynne Cheney: Hillary Clinton behind Monica Lewinsky?

“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Lynne Cheney said during an interview on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night. Would Vanity Fair publish anything of Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t want in Vanity Fair?”

Guest host Laura Ingraham responded that the theory “makes perfect sense, and I’m really mad I didn’t think of it first.”

Cheney said that releasing the story in 2014 would allow Clinton to run for president and say the story is “old news” once the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into full gear.