We are dealing with the Child of your Lord, not some Bush Girl

Readability

We are dealing with the Child of your Lord, not some Bush Girl

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.

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.