It’s just become commonplace in the age of Obama to see Michelle Obama and their two daughters on a European vacation involving stays in five-star hotels and high-end shopping even though President Obama laments about the struggles of Americans who he has failed to get back to work through atrocious economic policies. While many American families have to choose between mortgage payments or the summer trip to Disney World that they have been saving and planning for, the Obama family doesn’t think twice about fueling the tax-payer-funded 747 and skipping across the Atlantic for a week of carefree fun. Even as the American tourist industry is full of hotels and other tourist attractions that are struggling to survive, Michelle Obama heads over to Spain with the girls.

This isn’t how American leaders are supposed to behave. The hypocrisy has reached unsustainable levels. Instead, this is how third-world banana-republic dictators act. Take care of the miserable peasants and enjoy the spoils of power. Besides, as Jefe Obama pointed out last year, “I won.” At the same time that President Obama laments about the economy that his own inept economic policies continue to depress, he doesn’t even think twice about sending his wife and children on a globe-trotting vacation and billing the US tax payers for the transportation and security. Rooms at the posh resort that Michelle Obama-Peron is saying in cost up to $2,500 a night. The American taxpayers are paying for food and lodging for the first lady’s 70-person security team. The president is plotting ways to confiscate more wealth from America’s private sector and preaching that we all need to tighten our belts, yet he and his wife live in the lap of luxury and don’t bat an eye about spending everyone else’s money on lavish parties and vacations. The president has openly chastised private businesses for attending conferences in Las Vegas. However, at least they were keeping the money in the US.

(And while we’re on the subject, what kind of carbon footprint did the first lady/jefe leave on this trip? Did Chevy also make a Volt passenger jet? I hope it gets better mileage than the car, trying to cross the Atlantic 40 miles at a time would be pretty tough.)

The point isn’t to chastise the president and his family about taking a vacation. If he and his wife would refrain from preaching to the common people (aka non-White-House-dwelling-Americans) about the sacrifices we all must make for the well-being of everyone else, their family vacation wouldn’t require commenting. However, Michelle Obama-Peron tells college graduates to forego high-paying corporate jobs in favor of selfless nonprofit work (even though her last “nonprofit” job paid her $400,000 a year.) Meanwhile, her husband spends tax money in quantities unprecedented in world history and instructs taxpayers that they will just have to learn how to live within their means in order to fund his projects. Let’s also not forget all of the class warfare rhetoric he injects into every issue by blaming the evil rich for reckless spending. The president and first lady would do themselves and the nation a great service to tone down their expensive tastes. When they speak of living within their means, they need to realize that the US tax base isn’t supposed to be counted as their personal piggy bank. I mean, we are talking about people who flew their dog on his own tax-payer-funded jet to Maine so he could join them on their vacation. This makes the Peron’s look like careful stewards of the public fisc.

A writer at the New York Daily News covering this story dug up this quote from Jefe Obama from January where he claimed that “everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good. Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game.” Apparently, the game we all must have skin in involves supporting a first family that wants to live like A-list celebrities instead of public servants.

Suddenly, George W. Bush’s getaways to his Texas ranch don’t seem that bad.

Don’t cry for the Obama’s, America. The truth is they never knew you…

This article was first published on InsideSTL.com on June 4,

Judges in the past used their experiences and backgrounds to deprive others of liberty. Sotomayor's logic presents the same dangers.

Despite its faults, America has come a very long way during its short history regarding race relations. Just over 160 years ago, a Maryland Democrat lawyer was appointed Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court where he wrote an opinion stating that African Americans are “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” This was the disastrous Dredd Scott decision where the Supreme Court created a right to slavery based on the personal experiences and beliefs held by justices led by slave-owning Chief Justice Roger Taney. In discussing this injustice, former Reagan White House political director, Jeffrey Lord, quoted former judge Robert Bork explaining that Taney decided in favor of slavery “because he was passionately convinced that it must be a right.” Taney’s manipulation of the Constitution based on the knowledge gained from his experience required the nation to endure a bloody civil war and another 150 years of denying basic liberties to certain Americans based on race. The Dredd Scott case is one of America’s most embarrassing moments regarding civil rights. However, as Lord points out, it was decided solely because justices like Taney relied on their backgrounds and experiences instead of the Constitution.

Since he was a top recruiter and had family in the Klan, this could be a picture of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd's family reunions.

About 100 years after Dredd Scott, a Senator took to the Senate Floor arguing for segregation. He said, “Men and races differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision. Between two individuals, as between two races, there are broad differences.” He even claimed, when writing “all men are created equal,” the writers of the Declaration of Independence “did not intend that these words should be taken literally true.” The speaker was Democrat Senator and former KKK recruiter Robert Byrd of West Virginia, currently, the longest-sitting US legislator. Byrd acted as floor manager of the segregationists during the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans prevented Byrd and his Democrat Segregationist colleagues from moving the bill back to committee to strip it of its power. Byrd then delivered a 14-hour-long filibuster where he presented bigoted statements as “evidence” into the national record that insisted whites were intellectually superior and blacks were naturally criminals. He never did cite any evidence. Instead, he relied on his own background and experience. Byrd grew up with KKK family members and had joined the Klan as a young man, serving as a successful recruiter. Byrd’s background had made him convinced that he was right. Luckily, the Constitution’s actual meaning was upheld and Byrd’s racist screeds have become unacceptable to most Americans.

How are Taney and Byrd’s bigotry relevant today? Both men used their racist backgrounds as justification to twist the US Constitution to their preconceived notions of racial superiority. In the election following the Scott case, then-candidate Abraham Lincoln explained that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Ultimately, Lincoln would fight a very bloody and unpopular war over this statement. Almost 100 years later, the Senate ended Byrd’s filibuster and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with support of 80% of the Senate Republicans and 66% of their Democrat counterparts. The nation is better without Taney and Byrd’s thinking. Why would President Obama want to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who applies the same type of logic, only changing the colors of the victims?

Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has employed the same reasoning displayed by Taney and Byrd. She has claimed that, “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging…I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man.” While the White House claims this comment was taken out of context, Sotomayor has also stated “by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” What aspects of Sotomayor’s experience make her judicial reasoning superior to her less-wise white male colleagues? When did the law’s meaning change based on race or background?

While speaking to Berkeley School of Law, Sotomayor explained that appellate courts are where policy is made. One of the only cases widely discussed from her career, Ricci v. DeStefano, shows that Sotomayor put aside the rule of law in order to advance her version of social justice. In a decision solely based on race, she denied a dyslexic fireman the promotion he earned through long hours committed to overcoming his dyslexia. He was denied the fruit of his labor because no black candidates scored high enough on their promotion exams. Exactly which part of the “richness of her experience” taught Sotomayor to discriminate against white dyslexic firemen? How can this ever be considered justice or an attribute of a nominee? The Supreme Court is expected to overrule this decision just as they have done three out of the previous five times that her decisions have come before them. In these cases, she has only received 11 of the 44 total votes.

The White House is already warning any Republicans opposing the nomination will be labeled as racists. Sotomayor’s supporters praise B. Hussein Obama’s brilliance in appointing the first Latina Supreme Court Justice. However, none of them seemed to care that the potential first Latino justice was blocked explicitly because of his race. During the confirmation of George W. Bush’s appointment of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court, Illinois Democrat Senator, Dick Durbin, explained the liberal opposition by saying, “They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” (Emphasis added.) Unlike the Democrats’ racially-motivated opposition to Estrada, the current concerns about Sotomayor are purely centered on her history of disregarding the rule of law in favor of promoting the empathetic identity politics of the Obama administration.

There is a common thread between Taney, Byrd, and Sotomayor. They advance the idea of inherent racial superiority used to justify placing one group’s rights above others. This was wrong in 1857 and 1964 and it’s still wrong today. The Founding Fathers explicitly wrote that “all men are created equal.” Over 200 years later, a Republican American icon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream of “a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Both statements are as true today as when they were recorded into history despite the “richness” of anyone’s experience that may lead them to believe otherwise.

This is the perfect symbol of Obama's economic and social programs. Except this donkey is at least appearing to resist...

Before the election, I started the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge which took a very serious look at the character and policies of the man who has since taken over as President of the United States of America. Since the election, we have seen Barack Hussein Obama work diligently to change the entire economic, policital, and social structure of the nation with little, or no, opposition.

The path that Obama and his congressional Democrat colleagues have hurtled the country head-on leads nowhere but restricted liberties all in the name of “change” and “reshaping America.” Most of these policies have been attempted elsewhere with less-than-appealing results. They won’t have any more luck here.

There are people out there who still respect the sovereignty of the US Constitution and do not support an exponential growth of government power. Please visit often and feel free to leave some comments whether you agree with anything or not. Thanks for reading.

Ron