In Salute Of The Susan B. Anthony List And Melissa Ohden

The Susan B. Anthony List is set to launch ads in Missouri against Obama on abortion. The ads will feature a stunningly attractive young lady named Melissa Ohden speaking about Obama working to defeat legislation that would have made it illegal to kill children born alive despite being aborted. Ms. Ohden has a vested interest working to save aborted children who are born alive. She, herself, is a born alive, aborted baby.

Below is the nationally syndicated op-ed I wrote November 16, 2004, titled “Darth Democrat.” It also happens to be the op-ed that caused Obama to try to intimidate me with his Chicago-style thuggery.

I repost it as a salute to Melissa Ohden, and every born alive, aborted child, and as a reminder of the evil Obama represents. It is also intended to serve as a reminder that there have been only a select few leaders of civilized countries who have sanctioned the murder of children–among them are Mao and Hitler.
*************
DARTH DEMOCRAT

He is eloquent, well spoken, with a membrane-thin veiled socialist agenda cloaked in flowery speech. But unlike Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. – who had to be reminded by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that while congressional blacks were no longer relegated to ticket taker in a cloakroom, they had better not forget their place – Barack Obama, D-Ill., is just the kind of black man elite liberals can use.

But also unlike Ford, Barack Obama is much more appealing to blacks nationwide and thus much more formidable when you combine that with his ability to raise large contributions, his Muslim roots and education, his ability to rivet national audiences with his snake-charmer oratory skills and an appealing mien that connects well with liberal voters. Accordingly, Lord Obama could very easily morph into “Darth Democrat.”

It should be no surprise that he is from Illinois. Illinois has a long history (from Capone to Daley) of empowering the unsavory. This unsavory comes with a smooth veneer that reverberates a thirst for power.

He has presidential ambitions stitched into the very fabric of his being, and as a student of history he understands the danger of remaining a senator if he is to be successful with his ambitions.

Granted there are worse things than a black uber-liberal socialist Muslim, supposedly now Christian Democrat in the White House (unless your name happens to be Clinton). The question is: Who would want them visited upon this generation?


America is more ready than ever before to elect a black president, but this is not the one we want to break that unprecedented historical ground.

In a speech at his party’s national convention, he spoke of “work” that could be successfully completed through socialistic intervention and programming. He also bares the stripes of most uber liberals, i.e., the willingness to make it up as he goes along.

Speaking in a U.S. Senate debate (Oct. 26, 2004), Obama emphatically claimed responsibility for Illinois’ successful welfare reform. The truth – as written by Steve Stanek a year earlier – finds no relationship with his on the record accounts. With minimal investigation one finds he not only played no role in the Illinois reforms, but he was not even in office at the time. (Illinois leads the nation in welfare reform; Illinois Leader, Sept. 10 2003).

He is gifted at twisting his verbiage in such a way as to deform the truth. In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he spoke of “… measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers.” While that may sound good, there is a discernable difference between “forbearers” and the Founding Fathers of our country.

Obama’s forbearers are Kenyan, and it is alleged his grandfather was a slave owner. His reference to “forbearers” had nothing to do with those who sacrificed their lives life to establish a free society based on equality.

His statements were code omitting same, referencing instead an Afro-centrism and Pan Africanism. It was a deliberate attack against the foundation of our country and what we represent.

Another trademark of uber-liberal socialists like Lord Obama is complete disregard for human life – especially the lives of the elderly, physically challenged and the unborn. Or in Obama’s case, even the “Live-born abortion victims.” He claimed his reason for not supporting SB1093, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” was the measure didn’t include the “life and health of the mother” provision.

A question that begs an answer is where, exactly, does the threat to the mother lie in said infant protection? Interestingly enough, Obama refused to support two bans which did include exceptions for safety of the mother. So his refusal to support anti-partial-birth abortion bills HB382 and SB230 comes as no surprise.

He also refused to support SB1095, which creates a cause of action for harm or neglect that comes to a child “born-alive” after a labor-induced abortion. Add to that his “no” vote on SB1661, also part of the “Abortion Alive Protection Act,” which created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”

His positions on crime, sex education for grades K-5, homosexual marriage and taxes are out of the mainstream of the so-called liberal mainstream.

Obama embraces the darkest interests of the uber-liberal socialist. It can be argued there are worse things than a Clinton ticket in 2008 – and any ticket with Barack Obama on it is one of them.