Obama's Daughter Vacations in Mexico, But Let's Not Discuss It. In Fact, Let's Not Even Ever Have Discussed It

Completely divorced from the question of whether a politician's children are fair game for political attack, or even having their existence and life mentioned, this unfolding incident--stories from earlier today about Malia Obama and a gaggle of buddies spring breaking in Mexico (a place normal American kids are advised to avoid) with Secret Service protection disappearing from news sites--seems to indicate the White House can get a wide range of sites to take down stories, even if it is just with gentle persuasion or appeals to some higher standard. And that is highly unnerving.

The details from The Blaze, complete with screenshots:

references to it are disappearing from the Internet — and fast.

Around 3:00 EST, a Telegraph story reporting on the event was the first to vanish (note how the url remains the same in the “before” and “after”)....

Then, the related Huffington Post article was found to be linking back to a completely unrelated Yahoo News page titled “Senegal Music Star Youssou Ndour Hits Campaign Trail.”...

The Yahoo News story that HuffPo links to makes no mention of Malia Obama or her Mexican vacation. That raises two possibilities: either HuffPo has made an error in its link, or Yahoo has also removed its “Malia in Mexico” story. The latter more likely considering that the “-obamas-daughter-spends-springbreak-in-Mexico” url is still present in the Yahoo story.  

In fact, consider that the link to the Huffington Post article on Google now goes to the site’s main page. Alas, that story too has been taken down.

In addition to larger news organizations, smaller sites are also removing their stories....Free Republic removed a related discussion thread....

Of these sites, the only one to state a reason for the change was “Free Republic,“ where the Admin wrote ”Leave the kids alone.”

So that raises the question: Why were all these stories being taken down? Is the story false? Were they removed for security reasons?

Consider that the story still lives (as of this publication)* on the site of The Australian, which uses a story from the well-respected AFP (a sort of Associated Press for France).

Blaze link live at the moment I wrote this. Again, check out their full story for screenshot proof.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • omnibot||

    Into the Memory Hole

  • Nephilium||

    The final link is chock full of Sugarfreed goodness.

  • Brian Doherty||

    It was meant to be just a repeat of the first link, and is now fixed. If you refresh all the links are back (and all go to the same BLAZE story).

  • Suki||

    I celebrate your bravitudeness in linking to Glenn Beck in the face of the toxic environment of GB hate that festers here.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The only thing toxic about the glenn Beck environment is Glenn Beck.

    Don't get me wrong, he occasionally makes a good point or two, but the histrionics and rhetoric are utterly unhelpful.

  • *||

    The White House can reach out and get stuff deleted from Twitter too, if this report's implications are correct: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....alert.html

  • omnibot||

    *post redacted*

  • Paranoid.||

    Someone should archive the Blaze page. Just in case.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's archives all the way down...

  • ||

    Most. Transparent. Administration. In. History. Count on it.

  • omnibot||

    *post redacted*

  • rather||

    Baby, I see your visiting my blog tonight

  • ||

    I see what you're did there.

  • omnibot||

    You finally made sense.

  • Queer||

    Ohhh yes that is great come on shrike

  • rather||

    WTF, are you in the closet?

  • rather||

    WTF = why the fuck

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'll actually agree, in that we should only elect politicians who are single, or have no children/no longer have non-adult children.

    Saying that, the only people in the White House who are deserving of any sympathy, are the Obama kids. They'll never have a normal life, and God knows what kind of crap their parents are having their little heads stuffed with over at Sidwell Friends.

    It's almost child abuse, when you get down to it.

  • rather||

    Why would anyone let their kid go to Mexico? OTOH, she's a teenager ;-)

  • ben||

    Well, they sent them with about 25 secret service escorts.

  • ||

    Well she needs them. A lot of US weapons made it into dangerous hands down there.

  • ||

    Completely divorced from the question of whether a politician's children are fair game for political attack, or even having their existence and life mentioned...

    I think they become fair game if the politician in question tries to use them in a campaign or for his or her political advantage.

    If a politician ever does anything that says you should support him or vote for her because of their family and having raised a wonderful daughter?

    Then whether she's really a wonderful daughter becomes a legitimate question.

    The decision of whether to use his or her children that way is strictly up to the candidate.

  • I'll let Malia tell you that ||

    we are humping like rabbits

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Though I am loathe to use a politician's kids, it also seems that the politician brings his kids in to the conversation and opens them up as fair game when the first family uses my fucking money to send their children (and wives) on elaborate vacations complete with secret service protection.

  • rather||

    Brian Doherty hasn't posted since 11:46PM; is he still alive?

  • of course||

    It is late what do you think we are doing

  • sasob||

    So how long before the post and this comment thread are taken down here at H&R?

  • Suki||

    As soon as someone initiates a court case, or they stop get invited to DC parties, whichever comes first.

  • rather||

    Today, I heard Santorum discussing not only his secret service name but Romney's; the whole point of a code name is to protect, and extract in an emergency, and the fact that these names are public is negligent.

    As for any POTUS daughter, their general whereabouts should be subject to a self-regulated media blackout. The internet and citizen journalism makes this security detail complex

  • omnibot||

    why can't you go down the memory hole?

  • rather||

    you bore me omnibot

  • omnibot||


  • ||

    At least he isn't named Romnibot.

  • ||

    When two dozen secret service agents are babysitting the President's 13 year old daughter in Mexico, I think the public's right to know how their taxpayer dollars are spent overrides any privacy or security concerns.

    If Obama wants to protect his daughter, he can start by not sending her to Mexico without her parents.

  • rather||

    POTUS children need Secret service protection, and in fairness to them, a normal life.

  • Jarritos||

    Having armed body guards that evict the public where ever you go, and vacationing in Mexico, and leaving the country as a teenage girl without your parents, is a normal life.

  • rather||

    Huh, yes it is when your a POTUS kid

  • Bill||

    Secret Service protection is standard.

    But it is not common for a 13-year old to go to Mexico.

    Especially when it is deemed to dangerous for most people to travel to.

    She would normally have a few Secret Service, but here she has to have 2-3X as many (an estimate).

    It's bad judgement to let her go.

    It's an election year and the country has huge debt.

  • Natalie Holloway||

    Where the hell was my Secret Service protection?

  • The Nanny State||

    ""But it is not common for a 13-year old to go to Mexico.""

    Where are the Parents?

  • kf||

    So when you say "POTUS children need a normal life", that's just a big fat circular ball of nothing then.

  • ||

    ""So when you say "POTUS children need a normal life", that's just a big fat circular ball of nothing then.""

    No kidding.

  • Queer||

    Come on ... I will do it pleaase i take up the ass from so many people i will take it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Going to Mexico at 13 without your parents is a normal life?

  • ||

    WTF rather. "normal life"?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The protection of "leaders" never outweighs individual liberty of everyone else.

    "the fact that these names are public is negligent"

    Santorum just seems to have a reasonable understanding of the abilities of super secret code names.

    "whereabouts should be subject to a self-regulated media blackout"

    Disclosing information you have no obligation to is a right. And it is a good thing.

  • rather||

    It's a Schenck v. United States principle.; I prefer a free society but if, and when something happens; we will lose more freedom

  • Brandon||

    In other words, you pay lip service to a free society when it is convenient, but are happy to sacrifice everyone else's freedom so that you can feel safe.

  • An unnamed source||

    No government employee or government employee's family should ever have any taxpayer funded bodyguards.

  • ||

    As for any POTUS daughter, their general whereabouts should be subject to a self-regulated media blackout.

    We have to know where she is so we can avoid being prosecuted under that new anti-disruption law, don't we?

  • ||

    By the way, having lived in that part of Mexico for more than a year, the Yucatan is where the gangs send their own families because it's so safe.

    When they have a murder in Merida, it tends to be grisly because it's a mob hit and somebody gets decapitated, but listening to people in Los Angeles, where I used to hear gun shots all the time, tell me that I should be careful in Merida was ridiculous.

    Merida hasn't had more than a handful of murders in the last five years! If Los Angeles ever became as safe as the Yucatan, the mayor would end up running for president.

  • ||

    City of a million people!

    Probably has a lower murder rate than wherever you live.

    And the cops are so worried about protecting American tourists (from themselves as much as anything else), it's embarrassing.

  • *||

    Lemme guess - do you sell vacation real estate in Mexico?

  • ||


    But I knew an expat there who does.

  • *||

    How about a headfull of murders?

    2008: http://www.reuters.com/article.....1820080830

    Mexican governor blames Gulf cartel for beheadings

    "Eleven beheaded bodies with signs of torture were dumped outside the city of Merida in the Yucatan Peninsula on Thursday. A 12th beheaded body was found 50 miles away in a small town to the east of Merida, also showing signs of torture."

    Have you ever heard of mass assassinations via beheading happening in LA?

  • sasob||

    Give it time.

  • ||

    It happens occasionally. If you're part of a crime syndicate. ...and like I already said, beheading make the news!

    However, the murder rate for the Yucatan including Merida (city of 1 million people):

    1.3 per 100,000 people


    The murder rate for Los Angeles?

    They're celebrating because it's all the way down to 7.4 per 100,000 people! (assuming 4,000,000 in LA, which is generous)

    Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced there were 297 homicides in Los Angeles last year.


    4 million = 40 * 100,000

    297/40 = 7.42 homicides per 100,000.

    Am I right?

  • ||

    That beheading situation really kicked their murder rate up, too!

    If it hadn't been for that hit, there might not have been any murders to report at all.

  • Bill||

    Now there crime rate is 14 of out 14 beheaded! 100% crime rate.

    Oh noes!

  • ||

    The sheer amount of racism and stupidity when it comes to Mexico boggles the mind. Yes, there is violence. Yes, it is drug-related. Yes, we have a lot to do with that. But the majority of Mexico is quite safe - safer than most American cities.

  • *||

    Yeah, yeah. I used to think all that too. Hey - all the violence is just in the northern border areas! The rest is safe - safer than the US!. But after paying attention for the last couple years, particlarly to news from a few sleepy little towns frequented by gringo retirees, I know that that is sheer bullshit.

    Here's a crime blotter (http://www.lakesidecrime.com/localnews_history.php) for Ajijic/Chapala, a formerly sleepy community south of Guadalajara with a huge number of American and Canadian retirees that are completely losing their shit about the crime wave that's been happening for the last 2 or 3 years. Murders, grenade attacks, kidnappings. Police assassinated in broad daylight. Bodies turning up on the road. And when the victims are gringos, "robberies" now feature the victims being bound and gagged in their homes - this is not petty crime.

  • *||

    Serious crimes are hugely underreported by officials. I'm convinced that there are no towns with more than, say 20,000 people, that do not suffer the occasional mystery decapitated body showing up on the side of the road a couple times a year, let alone shootings.

    Mass murder in Guadalajara (granted, the no2 city, but about as central as you can get), bodies and narco messages hanging from freeway overpasses, cartels *blockading* the road to the airport... Mass murder of bus passengers in Veracruz... You really think every normal murder there makes it into the Mexican stats, or US papers?

  • *||

    10 days ago in Guadalajara:

    "Armed groups commandeered vehicles, setting many of them on fire, in both metro area Guadalajara and other parts of the state of Jalisco Friday in an apparent response to the arrest of a drug capo earlier in the day." "A man burned to death in one of the incidents, although it is not clear whether he belonged to a gang or was a member of the public." This at 16 locations simultaneously around the city.

    This is not crime, or danger, that only affects the narcos.


  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||


  • ||

    OK, except Malia is vacationing in Oaxaca, which is nowhere near the Yucatan. I do agree that unless you wander alone into certain areas, Mexico is perfectly safe.

  • queer||


  • smartass||

    ...Malia Obama and a gaggle of buddies spring breaking in Mexico (a place normal American kids are advised to avoid) with Secret Service protection...

    Normal American kids don't have Secret Service protection. Which is why most of them are sane enough not to go there.

    But hey man, it's a secret. Says so right in the name. You should consider yourself lucky to have ever heard about it at all.

    In fact if you insist on continuing to talk about this secret, those poor kids are going to have to take spring break in Somalia or something. So just knock it off.

  • omnibot||

    keep going you are on a roll

  • Queer||

    No I am sorry I take it up the ass at all times you homophobe.

  • queer||

    i could care less. abortion is a woman problem not mine. If you dont want to get preggo dont fuck some guy.

  • queer||

    i fucked so many guys but i have never got pregnant thank god

  • omnibot||

    dude he's dead

  • queer||

    I know. She told the cops that I was a stalker until I found my boyfriend.

  • scientologist||

    Really? Michelle is not a scientologist. But you are. I will take one for the team. I will give or take.

  • queer||

    I am kissing my boyfriend for you

  • GTFO||

    Really I like you. What a queer.

  • SugarArchTy||

    When will there be a sequl to Grizzly Man

  • ||

    I'm more inclined to think this was some technologically backward Secret Service employee trying to be proactive about the whereabouts of the President's daughter for security reasons than it being an attempt to avoid political embarrassment.

    Regardless of the motivation, now it is embarrassing. Anyone with any kind of familiarity with Google knows that once those stories are up, they can't really be redacted. Trying to squash the story will only make it worse.

    The part about the State Department telling Americans to avoid Mexico is pure spin. There is a warning about specific areas, but the area where Malia Obama is vacationing isn't listed.


    Were any of you outraged when Bush's daughter went to Mexico for spring break? Or were you outraged at the media? You can't have it both ways.

  • rather||

    The cartels had a peace then: "The fighting between rival drug cartels began in earnest after the 1989 arrest of Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo who ran the cocaine business in Mexico.[41] There was a lull in the fighting during the late 1990s but the violence has steadily worsened since 2000."

  • ||

    Actually back at that time, there were concerns about the Zapatistas operating in the Yucatan where Barbara Bush spent her spring break. I remember seeing a lot of military presence when I was in the Yucatan in the late 90's. Turned out to be a non-existent threat since the Zapatistas never were able to operate much beyond Chiapas.

    Let's face it: the biggest danger kids going to Mexico for spring break face are themselves.

  • Dave Anthony||

    I'm sorry but when I read Barbara Bush I pictured Grandma Bush... on spring break partying.

  • Anonymous||

  • ||

    Just for the record, the state dept does not actually have any warnings for the state of Oaxaca (from State Dept link provided on Blaze):
    "Oaxaca: Oaxaca, Huatulco and Puerto Escondido are the major cities/travel destinations in Oaxaca -see map (PDF, 286 kb) to identify their exact locations: No warning is in effect."

    Of course this was before all the news agencies reported that the daughter of the US president was vacationing there...

  • omnibot||

    Here's the warning from elsewhere

    There is high risk to your security in the city of Ciudad Juarez in the state of Chihuahua due to the high level of drug-related violence and we advise against all tourist and other non-essential travel.

    There is some risk to your security elsewhere in Mexico due to the high level of violent crime and drug-related violence and we advise a high degree of caution.

  • rather||

    I bought you a one-way e-ticket, where can I email you your baording pass?

  • omnibot||

  • rather||

    Your mommy said stop using her email and that yours is: Littleboymasturbatinginmommy'sbasement@libertarianneverneverland.com

  • Queer||

    wow thats so close you are a star trek fan...

  • Queer||

    please you can get me in

  • rather||

    wait, I don't give a shit

  • ||

    Ciudad Juarez is nowhere near Oaxaca. Juarez is a city on the U.S. border. The border is where most of the violence is taking place. If you read the entire State Department warning, you would know that the area where Malia is supposed to be vacationing is not listed.

  • np||

    Don't they know the interwebs never forgets?

  • ||

    There's a difference between attacking the kids and reporting on a story. It seems that the stories were simply stating the facts. Maybe there were some stupid comments on them, but I don't think the stories themselves were out of line.

    As for the security, some of the stories showed pictures taken by members of the press standing right the freak next to the kid. And not like paparazzi style on the street, we're talking in a jungle-esque setting. You're telling me the secret service didn't notice it? Now, maybe Mr. AFP dude was hiding in a tree a mile away, but I doubt it. Odd how they would just all of a sudden have a problem with it.

    I'm all for "leaving the kids alone." It just kinda ticks me off that we only actually honor that policy when it comes to Obama's kids.

  • ||

    As for why the stories are down (re: question on the Blaze), it's kinda obvious that the White House requested it. Perhaps the Secret Service. And the press folds before the master.

  • The Jacket||

    Leave the kids alone.

  • Nando||

    i'm in love with almond coconut milk.
    cow's milk can go fuck itself.

  • Queer||

    me too ... thats awesome

  • Max||

    Taking a little break from humping the corpse of Ron Paul's campaign, are we?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Some pretty lame-assed shrike-spoofing in this thread... not even remotely accurate.

    Example: Real shrike hates religion so much, he wouldn't even join a fake-assed religion like Scientology.

    Oh, no... will Scientology sue me for besmirchment? The horror!

    Nah, they'd just send Tom Cruise over to rearrange my living room or something...

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Anyway, IF the administration was *really* good at wiping things off the interwebz... there wouldn't be any stories about how Joe Biden got booed at the St. Patty's parade, what what?


  • Queer||

    You queeer.m i hate you

  • Dale||

    I want you

  • Nathan||

    What "normal" kids are told to avoid Mexico on spring break? Certainly there are areas of Mexico, but it seems a little xenophobic to write off the entire country as a place to visit.

    Tack on the implication you make that Malia is abnormal, and this is a pretty weak start to a post.

  • Nathan||

    The warning against going to Mexico is from the state department and general for all travelers, not specific to "kids" or "spring break."

    The very first line of the specific warning is, "Millions of U.S. citizens safely visit Mexico each year for study, tourism, and business, including more than 150,000 who cross the border every day" and goes on to say "Resort areas and tourist destinations in Mexico generally do not see the levels of drug-related violence and crime reported in the border region and in areas along major trafficking routes."

  • shorter Nathan||

    I think 13-year old girls going to Mexico for spring break with a bunch of their buddies and 2-dozen Secret Service agents is 'normal'. HERP DERP

  • ||

    I'm no set theorist, but last I knew general warnings for all travelers applied to kids on spring break too.

  • Fluffy||

    I'll leave the kids alone when Michelle Obama leave my kid alone.

    Actually, though, I thought this story was no big deal.

    But then someone upthread said, "Normal teenage girls don't go to Mexico" and I thought that was a bit much, since high school seniors and college freshmen go to Mexico for spring break all the time, and they're all teenagers.

    But Malia's Wikipedia page says she was born in 1998.

    I saw that and thought, "Holy SHIT. This kid is 14 and the Obamas are just letting her go to Mexico? What are they, Less than Zero parents or something?"

    I now think it's newsworthy after all. WTF, guys? This isn't a story about "the kids". It's a story about the Obamas being maybe the worst parents in America.

  • ||

    I'm sure killing the story had nothing to do with a campaign year and the Big O being "a man of the people."

    I can tell you now that I make decent middle class money (alas, not presidential money) and my kids won't be going to Mexico unless it's a family vacation or they can do it on their own dime in college.

    Fuck him.

  • Spoonman.||

    Holy shit, people born in 1998 are 14 now?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, only some of them. Most of them are still 13.

  • ||

    I know.

    I was floored last year when I realized most of my students were born after the USSR ceased to exist.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I refused to learn to speak till those Commies were defeated.

  • Joseph of FP||

    This is a perfect illustration of why it's a good idea for bloggers to save a copy of any report they write about.

    - I haven't practiced that policy before, but considering how stories often get altered with no notification or dissapear altogether, it's probably a good idea.

  • Jerryskids||

    This story isn't about the kid going to Mexico - it's about the fact that a lot of people thought this was newsworthy and then suddenly decided it wasn't, so much so that they removed the initial story.

    The question is why the stories were removed. Did all of these sites simultaneously decide it wasn't newsworthy and they redacted the posting of the story? That would be one hell of a coincidence.

    Was the story removed because it was deemed an invasion of privacy? The NSA has established there is no such thing.

    So were they advised by Top Men to remove the story for security reasons? Were they perhaps told they were violating secret laws subject to "due process but not judicial process" penalties? Or did Top Men remove the stories themselves? Do they have that ability?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  • Old Man With Candy||

    The biggest danger to her in Mexico is Steve Smith.

  • Jerryskids||

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Of these sites, the only one to state a reason for the change was “Free Republic,“ where the Admin wrote ”Leave the kids alone.”

    Uh Huh.

    That sure wasn't the attitude about the Bush daughters during the previous administration.

  • Mike M.||

    The obvious question is: if that part of Mexico is supposedly so safe, why is it so critical that the story be scrubbed? It can't be for safety reasons obviously.

  • Mike M.||

    Furthermore, what the heck does the little precious one need 25 freaking agents with her down there for? Why not just send a Marine unit for crying out loud.

  • 25 freaking agents||

    Hey, we need vacations, too!

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Hey, she's safe in Mexico. Joran VanderSloot is in prison.

  • Joe M||

    Well, if you go to Google news and search "malia obama mexico", you still get some results. Amazingly, I searched, found a link to a site using the AFP story, and was going to point that out, but when I redid the search, that site wasn't shown any more. It was the Montreal Gazette, where the story still exists.

    What's interesting is now a lot of stories are popping up about the original story being removed. So, I don't see what was gained, other than looking like a creepy information suppressing administration.

    You know what's funny, is this shit happens a lot, but people don't normally notice. I saw it time and time again with Ron Paul articles in 2011.

  • ||

    The places where the story is popping up are easily dismissed as GOP propaganda sites. Sort of like the sites that report on Fast and Furious.

  • lol||

    You mean like CBS?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    She wasn't on "spring break". College kids go on spring break. She was on March vacation.

  • Mensan||

    My first thought is that maybe it's some kind of school trip. When I was 14, I spent my spring break on a school trip to DC, Williamsburg, and Jamestown. Of course, we had to go by bus, and our chaperones were teachers, assistant principals, and a couple of parents rather than two dozen secret service agents; but I think the Obama girls go to a much better school than I did.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, they are too good for public schools.

    Regardless, she isn't on spring break.

  • ||

    Dude looks like he is having a lot of fun man.


  • ||

    Obama' State Department issues security warnings about travel to Mexico so where does his 13 year old daughter and her friends go on vacation? I can understand Secret Service protection for Malia when she travels, but 25? Aside from the security risk, why can't Malia and her crew visit a U.S. resort and help out the local economy? I seem to remember Barack Obama had a photo- op recently at Disney World, ostensibly to promote tourism. Of course his visit coincidently was during the time of the Republican primary. So now the Secret Service is sending 25 Agents (your tax dollars) to Mexico, to baby-sit a dozen 13 year old girls, and I'm assuming some of the girl's parents. Is there a habit of sending the children of the President to a foreign country that has been deemed unsafe for "other" Americans to visit?

  • Reneegede||

    They're children, you forget that. You also seem to forget that President Obama and his wife also pay taxes; and it is a high security risk. They are trying to have as normal a childhood as possible even with all the attention and the risk. What should happen to them, lockdown with chains and collars in a cubbyhole on a ship floating back to Africa?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    What "normal" American 13-year-old girl gets to go to Mexico with 12 of her (per the Montreal Gazette) presumably also 13-year-old+/- friends with no aduslt supervision except for twenty five highly paid an highly trained taxpayer funded bodyguards?

    Sorry, even without the suppression, and regardless of any risk factors, this story stinks to high heaven. If the Obamas want to send their kid on vacation it should be on their own dime including paying for any supervision or protection they think she needs out of their own pockets.

  • Reneegede||

    A security warning doesn't mean you can't go. Take your butt down there at your own risk. They've got protection. Where would yours be?

  • ||

    You're not really "leaving the kids alone" if you're giving them global Secret Service protection.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    The Obamas are not "giving them global Secret Service protection", we the taxpayers of the USA are.

    And frankly I resent every penny of it.

    Like I said above, if the Obamas want to send their kid on vacation it should be on their own dime. All of it.

  • Doherty Pulls Shit out of Ass||

    "SEEMS to indicate the White House can get a wide range of sites to take down stories, even if it is just with gentle persuasion or appeals to some higher standard."

    And your PROOF, Doherty, that the White House did anything about this story IS?

    That pile of shit you pulled out of your ass and are now fondling is not proof, by the way.

  • ||

    Sounds like someone is a little butthurt.

  • Brendan||

    She should go grab a beer while she's there. I would love to see the media meltdown that ensued.

  • Eliot||

    I wonder how they will handle this now that a huge earthquake hit 80 miles from where she is staying

  • ||

    So much for FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!

  • ||

    Oaxaca Mexico just had an earthquake at around noon today. Is M. obama there? Scary few minutes--but exciting.

  • Reneegede||

    I don't think you get it. She's a minor child and the president's daughter. She has been stalked and is wide open for assassination, so forget about political attacks. They are at HIGH RISK for attack, along with his wife. It is a safety feature. And they are both minors. They are not adullts, like Bush's daughters, they're children, barely teen and newly teen. I'm sure they're used to the attention by now, but it is a grave security risk. The GOP, namely in the name of Rush Limbaugh, have been found stalking them before. You can't talk politics when it comes to two little girls in a nation where someone will draw a gun on any black person just for being black. Think of that multiplied 90x with the president's daughters. Be realistic about it at least. Then an earthquake hits. Of course they need to know where she is when something like that happens. Wouldn't you?

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Oh, for fucks sake.

    So fucking what if she's the prezidink's fucking daughter?

    Why the fuck does she get to live her privileged life at taxpayer expense?

    Yes, her father is the President. She has no status other than a citizen of the US, same as any other citizen. Except in the world your kind of authority-fellators have created.

  • ||

    Not the first time FB has removed messages! Probably won't be the last...Everyone should read "1984" again.

  • ||

    A reasonable request for privacy is met with a reasonable response of maintaining that privacy by the media. That is a reasonable thin g to expect, not some cause infame to be decried.

  • Frankly||

    This whole thing just goes to show how disgusting the media really is. CNN wet themselves this morning with info about Hezbullah cells that are operating on U.S. soil and how they could attack at any moment. As they are talking about it they keep showing footage of mid eastern people jumping from helicopters and essentially hyped this thing up like Iran was gonna Red Dawn us at any moment. The great part was, they had a retired FBI agent come on and pretty much tell them that none of this could really happen, but that didnt stop them from running the story!

  • ||

    They want her to find out how the other 1% lives.

  • hermes sacs cuir||

    Cela peut être un sac à main Botkier Leon inutile. Plus de couleur, que l’on appelle le “Jardin” et “kaki” peut-être les hermes sacs cuir pastels réels sont beaucoup trop riche, mais ils ont leur douceur, ce qui rend difficile de leur donner un appel lumineux.hermes sacs cuir Dans le centre, quelque part, je parie qu’ils vont passer par les grandes choses nettes et blanc pour le printemps hermes sacs cuir.

  • sac hermès sacs à mains||

    sac hermès sacs à mains Non seulement est une superbe couleur avec ce sac, mais cette forme. Structure, légèrement dames sacs la chose la plus importante peut-être pendant un certain temps, et aussi cette tendance se dissipent habituellement lentement. Si vous souhaitez effectuer votre vie complète, à l’intérieur de votre sac hermès sacs à mains, allez voir ailleurs – celui-ci n’est pas en fonction de vos besoins. Peut-être un ou deux supplémentaires, cependant, est ici la taille parfaite dans le cas où vous voudrais juste votre porte-monnaie, lunettes, appareils mobiles et les clés acheter un sac hermès sacs à mains

  • sac birkin||

    sac birkin-Belles sacs Hermès, la nouvelle apparence, je crois que vous aimez sac birkin

  • sac birkin hermes||

    sac birkin hermes-Belles sacs Hermès, la nouvelle apparence, je crois que vous aimez

    Oscar de la Renta pour stimuler son jeu d’accessoires.sac birkin hermes Collection dans les dernières années, je sais de la poche pour acquérir progressivement mieux. Bien que ses vêtements et robe a été l’aide de la beauté et la conception de l’histoire,sac birkin hermes

  • prix sac birkin||

    les sacs ne m’a jamais attirer chaque fois que vous le pouvez. Mais plus tard, je ne peux vraiment pas arrêter de chanter les sacs Oscar de louange. Et, chers lecteurs, c’est la magie de cette industrie. Un prix sac birkin concepteur de sac birkin sac à main brillant peut montrer à l’intérieur de la seconde,prix sac birkin d’attirer beaucoup d’entre nous po Oscar de la nouvelle industrie de la mode, mais son sac est mon désir, mériter leur liste d’envoi prix sac birkin.

  • sac birkin achat||

    sac birkin achat Non seulement est une superbe couleur avec ce sac, mais cette forme. Structure, légèrement dames sacs la chose la plus importante peut-être pendant un certain temps,sac birkin achat et aussi cette tendance se dissipent habituellement lentement. Si vous souhaitez effectuer votre vie complète, à l’intérieur de votre sac, allez voir ailleurs – celui-ci n’est pas en fonction de vos besoins. Peut-être un ou deux supplémentaires, cependant, est ici la taille parfaite dans le cas où vous voudrais juste votre porte-monnaie, lunettes, appareils mobiles et les clés acheter un sac birkin achat

  • sac birkin pas cher||

    sac birkin pas cher à l’intérieur et l’extérieur. Sac Hermès est considéré comme un extérieur et l’intérieur aussi beau parce que la peau externe de la peau, qui, comme une dame vraiment élégant.sac birkin pas cher Mme la main dans le sac pour découvrir des choses, non seulement la main vous sentirez détendu, votre contour de l’œil peut facilement voir le bord inside.copie birkin hermes Beeswax merveille. Le paquet traite généralement et externe sera un bord noir, Edge la cire d’abeille Hermes vous ne serez jamais disparaître sac birkin pas cher

  • alan coffey||

    Did she really die in the Mexico earthquake? Just a rumor?

  • Timmy||

    Nonsense. I just typed "Malia Obama" into Google news and got over 15 news articles about her trip to Mexico, many from popular news sites.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.