Malone: lf you walk through this door, you’re walking into a world of trouble. There’s no turning back. Do you understand?

The Untouchables 1987

Sen Jefferson Smith: Mr. President. I stand guilty as framed! Because Section 40 is GRAFT! And I was ready to say so, I was ready to tell you that a certain man of my state, a Mr. James Taylor, wanted to put through this dam for his own profit. A man who controls a political machine! And controls everything else worth controlling in my state! Yes, and even a man powerful enough to control Congressmen, and I saw three of them in his room the day I went up to see him…And this same man, Mr. James Taylor, came down here and offered me a seat in this Senate for the next twenty years if I voted for a dam that he knew and I knew was a fraud. BUT if I dared to open my mouth against that dam, he promised to break me in two. All right, I got up here and I started to open my mouth and the long and powerful arm of Mr. James Taylor reached into this sacred chamber and grabbed me by the scruff of the neck…

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

During the first Iraq war the day that people remember is the toppling of Saddam’s statue (I tend to remember it because it was my wedding anniversary.) but a lot of people forget that after Baghdad fell Saddam’s forces held out a bit longer. It wasn’t until the end of the Month that major combat was declared over.

One might consider it foolish to continue to fight for Saddam once Baghdad was gone, but this ignores a vital fact. They weren’t fighting so much for Saddam but for their perks.

One of the facts of life is any tyranny, while it produces trouble for most, also creates some winners.

It’s axiomatic that if you didn’t play ball with Saddam you took your life into your hands but conversely a lot of people made a very comfortable living keeping the cogs of Saddam’s murder machine going from building the palaces and keeping them clean.

And police states invariably have a lot of paperwork and record keeping someone has to do that, someone provides the supplies, the paper the tech support etc etc etc.

It is the same thing with say a local drug dealer, he buys the expensive car, his front businesses for laundering money employ plenty of folks and hires the big law firm (think The Good Wife) to keep him out of jail.

The bottom line if you go along, you get a piece of the pie and that piece might make your life a whole lot easier.

The Exact same principle works with Liberalism.

When you extract money from the taxpayer to pay for NPR, Planned Parenthood or for liberal friendly NGO’s the taxpayers might be the losers but there are plenty of winners.

The top management of those organization of course do very well, but they have employees, they have staff, their offices buy everything from equipment to stationery.

With the welfare state it’s even bigger, on the government side you have to create a bureaucracy. That involves some well-paying management jobs that can go to political friends, and plenty of low-level employment in positions not subject to the normal risks of a bad economy.

And with NGO’s it’s even better, not only do the top dogs get a very comfortable living but your staff isn’t subject to civil service rules so you have the power to provide jobs, full time, part time and interns within a depressed community. That’s real influence.

And on the receiving side, you know where that next meal is coming, you know the money is supposed to be there. There is no incentive to try to do something better for yourself in fact it’s a disincentive because once you are no longer one of the people on the receiving end of these benefits, you are someone who is paying for it.

Now imagine how those people would react if someone threatened to take it away.

Actually we don’t have to imagine we can see how it worked in Wisconsin. When Scott Walker tried to end the sweetheart deals that Unions had, deals which cost the taxpayer a fortune but padded Union coffers he was pilloried and attacked like no other pol in the country. You had legislatures flee the state, you had recalls of supreme court justices and a recall election to bring him down. The left, the media and the unions went all in to destroy him.

They failed but even after their defeat the hate still remains:

the government employee unions — which failed to block his legislation, failed to recall him, and failed to take back the state legislature — still have it in for him.

“Stokes was a state prison guard for 32 years and is now retired. Waiting for his takeout order at Milwaukee’s Water Street Brewery, Stokes couldn’t even name Walker’s opponent. That she was running against Walker was enough for him….I saw the health care was free, and I thought that was a pretty sweet deal,” the woman tells me at the Capital Tap Haus in Madison. “I had been in the private sector and I felt like half my paycheck was going to insurance.”

and that hate, from start to finish is completely understandable  this man put it best.

Ron, a bartender at Buck Bradley’s in Milwaukee for more than 20 years, is backing Walker again. He understands the unions’ anger: “If someone yanked away your gravy train, would you be happy?” Ron asks with a laugh…“They don’t like their safety blanket being taken away,”

An even better illustration comes from this graphic in Investor’s Business Daily.


As the story states

A Brazilian economist has shown a near-exact correlation between last Sunday’s presidential election voting choices and each state’s welfare ratios. Sure enough, handouts are the lifeblood of the left.

In a Twitter post, Amorim showed a near-exact correlation among Brazil’s states’ welfare dependency and their votes for leftist Workers Party incumbent Rousseff.  Virtually every state that went for Rousseff has at least 25% of the population dependent on Brazil’s Bolsa Familia welfare program of cash for single mothers, given for keeping children vaccinated and in school.
States with less than 25% of the population on Bolsa Familia overwhelmingly went for Neves and his policies of growth.

A lot of new Tea Party voters were shocked at the tactics used to repress them and attack them, but it’s completely understandable.  Control of the government means control of where or IF money is spent and the people who are getting it will do all they can, legal or otherwise, to keep those dollars flowing.

And if that means rolling over you, so be it.  They are not going to give up their fiefdoms without a fight.


UPDATE:  Jazz Shaw provides exhibit A at Hotair

Covered California issues $184M in no-bid contracts

Who do you think those contract winners will be spending their money on?

UPDATE 2:  Exhibit B: Blaming the GOP for Ebola.

Any card to save the gravy train.



Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting Datipjar below and help keep the bills paid.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup , in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


Expanding on my post of yesterday morning about the Democrat party not being what it was. I thought of another theme we regularly see from the MSM.

We are constantly told stories of the good old days when the Democrats and the Republicans got along so well, the days when members of congress really cared and worked together to get things done.

If you don’t know better, you might actually buy that claptrap.

What they really nostalgic are the good old days when democrats had power in congress that was almost totally unchallenged and Republicans Presidents had to come hat in hand to do anything.

For those too young to remember let’s put it in perspective:

For the 17 years of my life I never saw a day when either house of the congress was controlled by the GOP. For 10 of those years the Democrats had sixty votes or more in the Senate and never had less than 54.

(BTW during the first six years of Reagan’s presidency the GOP majority in the senate was never higher than 54)

For the first 31 years of my life I never saw the House controlled by the GOP. During that entire time the Democrats never had a majority smaller than 50 seats.

To put that in perspective, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and George Bush didn’t have a GOP house for a single day during their presidency.

It wasn’t until I was 37 years old that the GOP had both houses and the White house and that only lasted 4 months until Jim Jeffries flipped. I had to wait till age 40 for the GOP to have a 51-49 majority in the senate at the same time they had the house.

Put simply liberal reporters who were starting out in the 60’s 70’s cut their teeth it was a joyous time. An era where liberalism ruled supreme and the GOP was powerless.

Congressmen could get along, it’s easy to be nice and condescending to people who are no threat to your the power you crave, you can even throw them a bone now and again to show just how magnanimous you are.

Conversely for establishment republicans, it was an easy time. Other than the odd pork project (which made big government stronger) you never were expected to stand up and be counted. You never had to make a tough vote, you could tell the folks back home how upset you were at the direction the country was going and then go back to Washington and still be invited to all the best parties and get the respect due to a member of congress because it was clearly understood that you knew your place. It’s why people like Newt Gingrich, elected in 1978 were so hated.

Frankly I think the media and the Democrat never got over Gingrich taking the house in 1994. They consider power a divine right and resent having to appeal to the mere voters in order to maintain it.

That’s why I often compare them to feudal lords. For all their supposed French revolutionary zeal they really see themselves as the nobles of the Ancien Régime unjustly deposed of the authority that is their birthright, dreaming of the day when they will take their rightful place at the seat of power where they will as in the old days look out for those unwashed masses who really don’t know what’s best for them.

One you understand that, it all makes sense.

The Doctor must be behind it! I sense the vicious doctrine of egalitarianism, Hade!

Doctor Who, The Sun Makers 1977

In my last post on the seeming willingness of Democrats to condone behavior against their foes that they would condemn if experienced by their friends I noted how familiar the arguments of those on the Democrat left sounded to the points their party forefathers of the nineteenth century made when explaining why a particular group of people were unworthy of the protections of law and culture.

While some on the left may not believe it right to comparing the arguments and attitudes of an Alexander Stephens in his famous crossroads speech or the majority opinion in Scott vs Sandford to their own, the objection fails due to their quite understandable mistake of seeing these arguments purely in terms of race rather than in terms of the real game here: social structure.

One of the distinct differences that social structure or caste brings is status. How one reacts to different behaviors and what actions can be permitted is based upon where you exist in the structure.

Here are three current examples of this:


The people we cover, we move in their world, but it is their world. You can’t live like them. You’ll never keep up.

The Paper 1994

Last Sunday David Gregory, while hosting NBC’s Meet the Press was interviewing Wayne LaPierre of the NRA held up a 12 shot magazine clip during a confrontational moment of the interview.

Meet the Press is shot in DC and these items are strictly banned with a stiff penalty for possession. NBC made it a point to ask permission of the DC police to bring in the studio, and the DC police refused yet Meet the Press and David Gregory felt unrestrained by this refusal.

As Stacy McCain put it:

in full knowledge that possession of a 30-round magazine is illegal in D.C. — where Meet the Press is recorded — David Gregory and NBC willfully violated the law just so Gregory could dramatize his anti-Second Amendment lecture to the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

NBC acknowledged directly the validity of the law by their request to the DC police, their ex-post-facto to provide ATF cover for their actions implicitly acknowledges the legal violation.

Yet the argument of the press is not a question of facts it’s a question of intent. Howard Kurtz laughingly states:

I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes.

I beg to differ, Gregory planned to possess an item in a location where it was prohibited by law.

If it was you or I or anyone else who possessed said device, the law would take it’s course but David Gregory is one of the elites of the media profession (not some grubby member of the Breitbart Crowd like James O’Keefe) as Noah Rothman puts it:

If the post-Newtown debate over gun control has shown that the media is somewhat out of touch with average Americans, the Gregory episode has revealed that they do not see themselves as average Americans.

He is not an average American, he is a member of a different distinct class, Bill Jacobson on the WCRN Morning Show’s case and Glenn Reynolds arguments  not withstanding as far as the media is concerned David Gregory is a courtier to the king beyond these petty rules and laws that an O’Keefe, Jacobson or DaTechGuy must follow.


“I — I couldn’t take a blow, sir. I suppose I’ve been too long with gentlemen”

Among gentlemen a blow could be wiped out only in blood; among the lower orders a blow was something to be received without even a word.

C. S. Forester: Hornblower and the Hotspur 1962 p 301

Sen. Daniel Inouye, who represented Hawaii in congress since statehood, died this week at the age of 88. Inouye served with distinction during World War 2, losing an arm, his death meant that governor Neil Abercrombie had to appoint a new senator for the seat and selected Lt. Gov Brian Schatz who flew back to the Washington with President Obama to be sworn in as Senator.

Not three weeks earlier Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced his upcoming resignation. Governor Nikki Haley in response appointed newly re-elected GOP congressman Tim Scott to the Senate seat. Scott will be the only African American member of the United States Senate and the first Black Senator from the south since 1881.

Yet while the appointment of a black American to the Senate by a female Republican governor of color has elicited responses like this…

MSNBC: Tim Scott, don’t be a token senator

Black Voices News: No reason to celebrate Tim Scott

The NYT: The Puzzle of Black Republicans

…the appointment of Brian Schatz a White Male to the Senate over Rep Colleen Hanabusa by another white Male to replace the longest serving minority in the Senate in US history has not produced a murmur of objection by the MSM.

To supporters of the GOP on the right this contrast might seem unjust but for the media and left Mr. Schatz’s and Mr. Abercrombie status, established by their political persuasion, provides the necessary imprimatur for their choices. That status means their actions are unworthy of complaint while the critique of Mr. Scott & Mrs. Haley, they are to be received without even a word.


Is that you reading Kizzy?

Roots 1977

I follow several people of the left, some that I have met, some that I haven’t and some simply because the mood struck me. One of these people is a lady by the name of Reda St. Cyr.

I know nothing about Reda than what I’ve seen on twitter and what is in the description above. As she lives in Nevada that is unlikely to change.   We’ve occasionally had disagreements over the NRA, over show ID to vote and other issues over twitter, but I know absolutely nothing else about her.

Yesterday we tweeting concerning Guns & the NRA when a subject that is a pet peeve of mine came up, the slaughter of inner city blacks that is ignored by the media and by those who march. At the end of the conversation she tweeted something I found telling:

It is the confusion that is of note here.  I’m sure Ms. St. Cyr is a nice and reasonable woman and is thought so in her community but like Q on WCRN who sees the Tea Party as totalitarian see the GOP as a force for wrong. She, unlike Q, can not wrap her head around the idea that a seemingly nice fellow could be a Republican, and even stranger that such a fellow could make a public argument to support GOP or NRA beliefs. It’s a source of expletive generating confusion.  Why it’s as unbelievable as an illiterate reading scripture.


All of these examples, point to a different caste, a caste that lives under a different set of laws then beneath them, a caste where behaviors are not to be questioned, a caste that reacts with amazement when a member of a lower order displays traits that they would expect from their fellows.

In short this is Feudalism, and they are the lords…well almost. as I’ll explain later.

P.S. I have an emergency bleg up to cover some expenses (oil), details are here, any help would be most appreciated.

We’ve talked a bit of Tina Brown in the past and her nearly infinite capacity to lose people’s moment at a rate even faster than Obama can spend it.

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Even if some on the left didn’t even mind the loss

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

because it makes them part of the club:

when people invest in Tina Brown, their return is to be part of that “In” crowd. To be invited to the party, to be able to say to people: “Oh yes I was at that event with Tina, we met Bernard Henri-Levy and we had a marvelous time.”

It’s all about being a member, Invest in Tina Brown and you can hobnob with the great,

Until with losses of 10+ mil a year:

OK, if $30 million is an “excessive” estimate of their 2011 losses, but nobody’s arguing with estimates of $10 million of red ink a year, isn’t it a fair guess that Tina has pissed away at least $50 million in the past four years, including about a million a month since the merger?

people finally said enough:

After Tuesday’s announcement that the Harman family was pulling back from its “investment” (Sidney Harman bought Newsweek for $1 in 2010), this required some explanation from Barry Diller, whose IAC conglomerate holds the controlling interest in Tina Brown’s red ink empire.

But now something totally unexpected has happened, something that could shake the entire paradigm of the Tina Brown:”How to become rich and famous on other people dimes”™….

…An issue of Newsweek has, wait for it, made money!

The early read on sales suggests the issue could double Newsweek’s newsstand average, MagNet said. It’s also on track to land among the title’s top three newsstand sellers since 2010, according to MagNet data.

And not just on the newsstand, it was a MONSTER for downloads too.

“All reports indicate the August 27th issue was a strong performer both in print at the newsstand and on tablet,” the spokesman said.

IPad edition downloads on the issue’s first day were 4.3 times higher than usual, the spokesman said

And Tina Brown is, quite naturally, taking a bow.

“The Newsweek cover is a place for robust debate and that’s clearly what excites readers too,” Ms. Brown said Thursday in a statement provided by the spokesman.

There’s just one tinny tiny problem. The issue that made the profit had a cover with the title:

Hit the Road Barack, Why we need a new president now.

Mind you, the issue wasn’t all anti-Barack all the time, it was pretty much the cover and the cover-story, the rest of it was pretty much the same Newsweek pablum it always is.

But it matters not, the entire left side of Tina Brown’s universe was absolutely outraged by both the cover and the piece. The angels who have invested so much time and money for the sake of Newsweek’s ideological purity (that’s why Newsmax’s bid was rejected) are not likely to be willing to see more of this kind of thing.

But it made money, Tina Brown did something outside of her normal box, and it actually made money.

The question is What Now? History points to two paths

On January 5th 1971 the Washington Generals broke their eternal losing streak beating the Harlem Globetrotters 100-99 in overtime ending a losing streak of 2,495 games. They have not repeated that feat since.

Two centuries earlier and half a world away on April 1st 1572 a group of Dutch Pirates known as the “Sea Beggers” Captured the town of Briel in the then Spanish province of the Netherlands. Although “officially” they sailed under a letter of Marque from the Prince of Orange, they pretty much were pirates pretending to be patriots. They had never taken a town before and only tried because of a lack of provisions, (The English had banned them from their ports). The plan had been to take what they needed and go but with no port to operate of of William de la Marck consulted his captains for their opinion, it was unanimous as historian Marvin Albert put it in his 1957 book Broadsides & Boarders:

The taking of Briel had transformed them from pirates pretending to be patriots into real patriots, from wandering exiles to freedom fighters standing on their own soil for the first time in years.

Now imagine you are Tina Brown, you’ve got a rep as a part of the Global “In” crowd but you’ve never really managed to make a business work, you’ve succeeded in getting people to finance your lifestyle but as a publisher you’ve never actually “succeeded”…

…and then this happens.

It creates buzz, it creates controversy and it creates something you haven’t seen before PROFITS!

What if, just imagine, what if you could do this again, and again, and AGAIN? What if inverters didn’t decide to give you money because they wanted to use you to be cool, to advance their agenda, to prop you up for their own purposes, what if they decided they to invest in you because they believed in your ability to succeed?

And you KNOW if would work, you could have conservative covers on a regular basis, have one or two a month, keep the rest of the mag liberal and appeal to BOTH sides of the aisle, create buzz, maybe even turn the mag into a print & internet version of Crossfire with a regular feature of two of your writers going at it online.

Could you do it, could you really do it? Haven’t you, Tina Brown wondered deep inside if this is possible? Wouldn’t it be nice to know that sans all the angels, you could stand on your own two feet?

Or is it just too comfortable to take the money and not worry about success, after all it’s hard work and it never stops.

Before today, Tina Brown, this wasn’t a problem, but now you know what works, you’ve seen it work, you know it CAN work.

Who will you be Tina Brown? Will you be your own women or a kept woman for the left? Will you be the Dutch Sea Begger declaring your independence from your ideological chains, change from being a faux journalist to being a real one? Will you like the De la Marek declare your independence and hold the line against the inevitable counterattack …

…or will you be the Washington Generals, getting one win because nobody was paying attention and the next time dutifully and submissively never making that mistake again?

It’s up to you, may God grant you the wisdom & strength of Character to make the right choice.

Do you remember Oral Roberts years ago saying he would be “called home”? I thought of that when I saw this story:

Humans are living outside their means, depleting natural resources like forests, air and water 50% faster than the planet can renew, according to the 2012 World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet Report” released this month.

If the trends aren’t reversed, by 2030 we’d need more than two Planet Earths to sustain human activity, according to the study.

National review snarks:

Mr. Loucks is certainly correct about one thing: at some point the earth’s going to poop out, but we just don’t know when. Since that’s a pretty scary thing to think about, why not pick a date out of your hat — oh, say, 2030? After all, fund-raising is ever so much more effective when the end is near.

Before you rush off and to buy indulgences from the WWF consider: the WWF comes out with a study saying we all need to live like Indonesians. In fact the story reports that next month’s United Nations conference on sustainable development will be working on reversing the trends in the study. So how are these environmentally conscience folk going to do this…

called the Rio +20, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

…by jetting off to RIO!

RIO by the Sea OH oh me oh oh my oh

If only the technology existed for people to have a meeting and share documents where they were, then it would not be necessary to jet all these international civil servants and NGO members, charities and of course their support staffs to RIO to eat and drink and opine on how to keep people from wasting the world resources.

If you can explain to me how contributors to these people are any different from those who sent their dollars to keep Oral Roberts alive, I’d really appreciate it.

Footnote 1: If we are supposed to live like Indonesians does that include the dog eating and pipe beating?)

Footnote 2: Slightly unrelated: On the Oral Roberts business can someone explain to me why being “called home” is bad to a Christian who preaches “one saved always saved?”

Update: Speaking of things this reminds me of

The 4th Doctor: …A Lost mine, A phoney map are people still falling for that old guff I mean are they?

Romana 1: You mean you didn’t believe his story?

The 4th Doctor:

Romana 1: But he had such an honest face?

The 4th Doctor: Romana, you can’t be a successful thief without an honest face can you?

or in the WWE’s case, a pretty web site and an epic report of doom.

Update: Coincidentally at PJ Media today it appears the Hockey stick is broken:

It was clear from the emails that Briffa had been telling one story publicly and another privately as to his reasons for not including the devastating data, but the tide finally turned last month, when the University of East Anglia was finally forced by the British Information Commissioner to at least tell McIntyre which data sets were used in its results.

They link and quote the blog Bishop Hill. PJ media finishes thus:

But at a minimum it should be the final blow to the hockey stick, and perhaps to the very notion that bristlecone pines and larches are accurate thermometers. It should also be a final blow to the credibility of many of the leading lights of climate “science,” but based on history, it probably won’t be, at least among the political class. What it really should be is the beginning of the major housecleaning necessary if the field is to have any scientific credibility, but that may have to await a general reformation of academia itself. It would help, though, if we get a new government next year that cuts off funding to such charlatans, and the institutions that whitewash their unscientific behavior.

Update 2: Hotair notes the study but misses the Rio Angle

BTW for those who aren’t familiar with the Mostel version here is one more modern.

That’s what I take away from this line via Glenn from the Wall street Journal:

“What I find reprehensible beyond belief is that the people pushing [high-density housing] themselves live in single-family homes and often drive very fancy cars, but want everyone else to live like my grandmother did in Brownsville in Brooklyn in the 1920s,”

That’s Joel Kotkin a demographer interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, he sees the following endgame:

Mr. Kotkin also notes that demographic changes are playing a role. As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California’s politics become even more left-wing. It’s a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, “the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees.”

So it will be the Lords, the Serfs and the servants in the castle. Feudalism is alive and well!

Our progressive friends leading the people back to the 11th century!

Edwin: I’m not bound by a word given by an outlaw, honor is between gentlemen.

Robin Hood: And something to be worn like a convenient coat, when it becomes uncomfortably warm you just take it off.

The Adventures of Robin Hood: The Youthful Menace 1958

As you may have noticed for a Conservative Republican, I quote Biographies of Lyndon Johnson and the Autobiography of Tip O’Neill an awful lot while I can’t remember the last time I quoted Buckley.

I was for the first nearly 40 years of my life a democrat, but slowly the party moved away from me until I finally as a believing and practicing Catholic decided to officially join the side I was already on.

In political terms both O’Neill and Johnson were giants, they understood people and part of their success came from their origins. O’Neill came from modest beginnings and achieved power never forgetting where he came from. Johnson came from an even humbler start and those roots compelled him forward. Unlike O’Neill he was not restrained by ethics but that lack of ethical restraint didn’t keep him from understanding people particular the voters from the Hill Country that he sprang from or the people like them all over the country.

It was that connection with the great masses that made the Democrats and what they stood for the party of my family and the immigrants like them as Joseph Fein notes in an excellent post:

The Tip O’Neill Democrats (unlike today’s [Howard] Dean Democrats) stood up for Free Speech and were unafraid of the poor and the unwashed. Whoever has time to bring camping gear in the middle of a city?

The contrast is amazing, when Tip O’Neill wanted to flip Massachusetts he used hard work to recruit candidates and turn things around. Today’s democrats take a different view:

When Democrats lose, that’s not a coup, that just means you lost this years elections. Don’t blame it on the Koch brothers, Halliburton or anyone else, sometimes the voters don’t like you. The Republicans spent 40 years in the wilderness until Election 1994 (Congressional elections not Presidential ones) — not one Republican thought of changing the rules or the constitution.

It has been ever so, when the GOP took the congress in 1994 Peter Jennings called it a temper tantrum, for eight years the left insisted that George Bush was not legit and when in 2010 the voters threw out the democrats America is dumb.

I’ve been writing about the elites and Feudalism since 2009. Because they see them selves as our betters their actions are no surprise.

That’s why they can go from talking about the sanctity of the court to attacking them when they dare defy them

That’s why they can go from deploring questioning Romney’s religion to pushing the meme.

That’s why they can go from a war on women and deploring Rush Limbaugh to attacking Conservative women in office and out.

And lets not even start with going after a seriously ill female friend of mine in an attempt to ruin her reputation over an online contest.

You see as we haven’t achieved their level of enlightenment, we certainly can’t expect to be treated as people, let alone equals.

I’m pleased to say there are exceptions, would that there were more.

Sir Charles of Bixby: (to his fussing son) “It’s simply a case of someone climbing up a tree an em…

Reeve: “..and risk a broken neck for a cat?”

Sir Charles: “Devoted liegeman YOU are!

Bailiff: One of the serfs?

Sir Charles: (pointing to Tom the serf) C’mon you, up there fetch him down…

The Adventures of Robin Hood: The Final Tax 1957

There are two aspect of the entire “Obama daughter vacations in Mexico” story that I really object to.

The double standard concerning the coverage of Obama’s daughter vs the coverage of the Bush Daughters. It would seem that when their Lord wishes to change the rules of the press, the media facilitates them:

Bailiff: If I might suggest Sir Charles, by common law he can be declared legally dead by a corner’s jury.

Sir Charles: Really? Good. I appoint you corner, and your you’re a juryman and you.

Serf: (interrupting) Excuse me my Lord, doesn’t it have to be after a certain amount of years?

Sir Charles: I’m not going to wait about for years, you’re a juryman…

If the Bush White House asked the press to scrub stories concerning their daughters the media would be screaming about an “imperial presidency” and “freedom of the press”. Under liberal feudalism the press owes Obama service and MSM nothing is too good for their Liege Lord who rewards them.

This is of course egregious but it is Claudia Rosett (via Glenn) who beats me to the punch of the real outrage of this story:

…these Secret Service agents have been sent to provide security in Mexico, where the State Department warns that due to transnational criminal organizations, “crime and violence are serious problems throughout the country” including “homicide, gun battles, kidnapping, carjacking and highway robbery.” State reports that “gun battles have occurred in broad daylight on streets and in other public venues, such as restaurants and clubs.” Of particular concern are “kidnappings and disappearances throughout Mexico,” with local police in some cases implicated. State adds that U.S. government personnel and their families “are prohibited from travel” to some of the most dangerous areas. And though the holiday destination reported in the vanishing new stories is not on the list of Mexican provinces totally taboo for personal travel of government personnel, State warns that in Mexico, “even if no advisories are in effect for a given state, crime and violence can occur anywhere.”

…and for this vacation whim of his daughter two dozen secret service agents plus support personal are dispatched to a country that the state department warn against travel against. Ms. Rosett asks the question about both this and the disappearing stories:

In the terrible event that State’s warning proves relevant, and in the course of doing whatever it takes to provide security, any of those 25 or so American Secret Service agents are wounded or even killed in the line of fire, would the White House still consider the context a non-story? Would it be irrelevant that they had been asked to run such risks not to safeguard official business, but to enable a personal holiday trip to a place under a U.S. government travel warning?

I can see the speech that the president would give at the funeral now. I suspect it would sound something like this:

Sir Charles: ” What can we say of poor Tom Joyner? That he lived out his life in that station he was born, and that he died the finest death that a bondsman can die, doing boonday work for his lord.”

This is the real story here. To the White House, these secret service agents are just serfs (Remember Ron Silver’s: “Wait a minute those are our planes now!” at the time of Clinton inaugural?) and as serfs any risk that they take are simply the proper service a serf does for his liege Lord. Our friends on the left style themselves the protectors of the weak but I suspect if you take a peek at this episode Sir Charles and his crew will look awfully familiar:

I suggest that after Jan 2013 with a Republican in the White House the treatment of government workers as serfs will abruptly cease and that the press will join the side of the outlaws in the forest and loudly trumpet their courage in doing so.