Friday, September 26, 2008

SBA List President: 'Obama is Lying About Record on Born Alive Infant Protection Act'

Article from
Today, in response to a new Ohio ad by the Barack Obama campaign addressing Obama's position with regard to opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act the Susan B. Anthony List offered comment and facts on Obama's record: "If only 'change' was all about how Barack Obama could change his past votes. He knows his extreme record on abortion doesn't resonate with values voters in battleground states, and sadly it is too late to change his votes. So now he's truly lying - bordering upon the pathological -- with this new television ad. The only favorable interpretation of this ad would be that he is suffering from some sort of amnesia," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

"However, that seems unlikely. His inhuman vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is too memorable and will repel values voters across the country. American voters are savvy - they can and will see through Barack Obama's cynical attempt to play the politics of personal gain when unborn lives are on the line. Obama built a straw man out of the public's condemnation of his vote. No one claimed he wants to leave every single newborn infant to die - just the most vulnerable ones - those almost full term girls and boys whose abortion was unsuccessful," said Dannenfelser.

Documents recently obtained by the National Right to Life Committee reveal a discrepancy between the facts and Barack Obama's rhetoric about the Born- Alive Infant Protection Act: - Barack Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator. He spoke against the bill, calling it an "unnecessary burden" for women and voted against it three times. Despite that opposition, he has since declared support for the federal version of the same legislation that aims to protect newborn babies who survive abortions.
- After NARAL pulled its opposition to the legislation, Obama continued to oppose it.
- Obama has publicly stated he opposed the legislation due to its lack of a "neutrality clause" - language expressing that the bill had no bearing on the legal status of unborn children with regard to abortion.
- Official legislative documents show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where "neutrality clause" language - identical to the federal language - was added to the Illinois version of the Born- Alive Infant Protection Act.
- After voting in support of the "neutrality clause," Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the "neutrality clause."
- The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born- Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002.

Since its founding, the Susan B. Anthony List has helped elect seventy-five pro-life candidates to the House, seven to the Senate, and seven to other statewide offices across the country. The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 147,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Stealing the Minds of America: Compelling Truths for Black America

[This is one of THE most important posts The Sope-Bocks has ever published.]

While listening to a radio talk show yesterday evening, I was blessed to hear a proud black woman speak on the coming election and the two major political parties in America. This morning, I visited her website in an attempt to find out more. Here is an excerpt from her opening salvo on the site:
I was ignorant and proud. Ignorant of what the political parties really embraced and too proud to set aside my preconceived ideas to listen. Yet when I began to research the facts for myself, I was shocked to discover that what I thought I knew was all a lie. In reality, I had aligned myself with the very party that historically, had determined to eliminate African Americans from the entire political process. This is a must read book for all truth-seekers who vote! –Janice L. Ponds

Janice L. Ponds is writing about the Democratic Party. Remember, she is black or as the politically correct would say, African-American. Janice and her husband have researched and published a book entitled, Stealing the Minds of America. The subtitle is: A Must for All Truth-Seekers Who Vote. I plan to order the book -- then read it from cover to cover.

After listening to Janice Ponds last night, I would encourage everyone -- especially the black community to read the book. But, only if they are truth seekers. Those who want to blindly (and ignorantly) follow the black community's mandate to vote Democratic will not want to read the book. It's for truth seekers ONLY.

In the event, The Sope-Bocks readers might want to know more about the truth, here are a few questions asked and answered in Ponds' book:

Do you know what political party…

  1. Was initially created as anti-slavery leaders broke away to establish a new political group to abolish slavery?
  2. Allowed black Americans to participate in the political process subsequent to slavery; resulting in hundreds of black men who were former slaves, becoming congressmen and prominent political leaders?
  3. Spearheaded the Dred Scott decision of 1857, delivered by a party-specific Supreme Court declaring blacks were not persons or citizens, but instead property with no rights?
  4. Repealed all civil rights laws in 1876 and instituted Jim Crow” laws to deprive blacks of their voting and civil rights?
  5. Did not have a single one of its 56 Congressional members vote for the 15th amendment which supported granting explicit voting rights to black Americans?
  6. Formed the Ku Klux Klan in an effort to prevent African-American leaders from being elected to political office after slavery was abolished; and terrorized both black and white Americans who had a specific party affiliation?
  7. Had its key leaders vote against a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004; which would protect unborn children from assault and murder?
Here are the answers:
  1. Republican
  2. Republican
  3. Democratic
  4. Democratic
  5. Democratic
  6. Democratic
  7. Democratic
This information was somewhat of a surprise to me. I knew that Republicans and Christian leaders in Congress were at the forefront of abolishing slavery, but was NOT aware that the Democratic Party had pushed so hard to keep blacks from having civil and voting rights.

Furthermore, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, came up with the idea of her organization as a means of wiping out the black race. Now, Presidential candidate Barack Obama is in bed with Planned Parenthood -- and supports ALL abortion (including late term abortion). So much for looking out for your fellow man, huh?!? Black so-called "civil rights leaders" need to get their head out of the sand and get with the reality of the party they so vehemently support.

Ponds' website, Thinking for Yourself, also has five powerful and thought-provoking excerpts from the book. Take the time to review the truth contained therein: Excerpt 1, Excerpt 2, Excerpts 3 and 4, and Excerpt 5.

Janice Ponds' book, Stealing the Minds of America, is past due. It was needed before the 1992 elections -- and is needed more than ever in 2008. I challenge the black community to start thinking for yourself!

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Richard Viguerie: It's Sarah Palin's Principles, Stupid

Article from
With the popularity of Governor Sarah Palin providing lift to the GOP ticket, Republicans are starting to feel better about races for Congress and at the state level. But most of them are missing the point of her popularity and may be personally disappointed on Election Day, Richard A. Viguerie said.

"Too many Republican candidates think Governor Palin is popular because of her gender or because she's a fresh face with a 'cool' life story. They think they can hold onto her skirt and that her popularity will help carry them to victory," said Viguerie, Chairman of

"The truth is, 'It's Palin's principles, stupid!' It's what she represents, as a reformer fighting corruption, even in her own party. It's because you can believe her when she says she will wage war on the corrupt Washington establishment. That's not something you can say about most candidates, who stood by throughout their careers doing precisely nothing about the culture of corruption that infests Washington and politics in general.

"And she's popular because she holds to the core beliefs of the coalition that elected Ronald Reagan in two landslides--on taxes, spending, the role of government, and traditional ideas of right and wrong.

"The popularity of Palin--and the heightened popularity of John McCain, who selected her as his political soul mate--won't help other Republicans unless they also hold to those principles and campaign credibly on those principles.

At a minimum, Republican candidates must demand the top-to-bottom removal of the Republican leadership that nearly sank the party over the past few years. That includes the leadership in Congress, the Bush administration, and GOP officials at the national level and in most states.

Republican candidates must tell us how they'll shut down the lobbyist-and-Big-Government political machines that dominate the nation's capital and most state capitals. And candidates for Congress must tell us how they'll tear K Street down to street level and sow salt in the earth so that nothing ever grows there again."

Said Viguerie: "It's a cliche, but it's true: The American people are fed up, and want change. By picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has gone a long way in convincing voters that he will be a warrior for the right kind of change. But lower-level Republicans will do poorly unless they demonstrate clearly and credibly that they will be on the front lines of the epic battles to come."

Friday, September 19, 2008

A Clear and Present Media Bias

I just ran across an excellent post by Larry Clifton over at the American Politics and Media blog. Mr. Clifton published the post on September 8th. I'll share some of it with you...
... There is a lot about Sarah Palin that I don’t know. I do feel that I am comfortable and impressed with what I do know about her. On the other hand, there is a lot about McCain that I do know. Probably too much. In either case, I believe both are brave patriots who put country first.

Regarding Obama…not so much. Perhaps there is a bias behind my discrimination against his campaign; if so, it is appropriate and well documented. Today, Obama claims he is for the Bush tax-cuts that he has railed against for so long. Last week, along with House Speaker Pelosi and her ilk in Congress, he suddenly decided that offshore drilling might be a good idea after opposing it for his entire 300 or so career days present in Congress. And that whole thing about rural Americans “clinging to guns and religion…” he didn’t mean it, but it sure sounded good in San Francisco. Far more troubling is Obama’s reluctance to show our military - the military he wants to lead - a small modicum of respect.

Americans may argue the merits of the Iraq war for decades, or at least until Middle Eastern women no longer need to worry about being murdered by their fathers for choosing their own husbands. But arguing that our soldiers and their highly successful surge against Al Qaeda, which calmed the country and slowed violence against civilians while drastically lowering our troops’ combat casualties, didn’t work – well, even Al Jazeera can’t spin that garbage.

So, last week Obama admitted that the surge that he voted against and vehemently protested is a military success. It seems that as the election enters the home stretch, Obama is morphing into a rabid right-wing Republican. ...
You should read the entire post -- here.
T-shirt from

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Why Biden's Plagiarism Shouldn't be Forgotten

From Teachers and scholars consider the unattributed use of someone else's words and ideas to be a very serious offense, but the public doesn't seem to mind much, at least when it comes to politics. The incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race have drawn little comment since his selection as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate ... .

In 1987, before Biden quit the race, he called the incidents "a tempest in a teapot." ... Biden's exit from the 1988 race is worth recalling in detail, because his transgressions far exceeded Obama's own relatively innocent lifting of rhetorical set pieces from his friend Deval Patrick, which occasioned a brief flap last February. Biden's misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect.

Read the rest of the article here.

Also in Slate: Shmuel Rosner examined the "erratic pragmatism" of Biden's Middle East policy. Jack Shafer called Biden "the unusually creepy kind" of plagiarist.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Concerned Women for America Says, 'Stop Bullying Sarah!'

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) is appalled at the distortions about women and Christianity embodied in the personal attacks against a political candidate who is unapologetically also a woman, wife, mother and evangelical believer.

"In its continuing game of 'gotcha' journalism and the 'politics of personal destruction,' the mainstream media (MSM) and celebrity reporters are piling on Sarah Palin," said, Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, political commentator for CWALAC. "The personal attacks have reached unprecedented pettiness and hypocrisy. Even former journalistic giants (like the Washington Post and New York Times) are engaging in tabloid-like sensationalism and printing vicious distortions about her life, faith, experience and family. Even feminists -- who supposedly promote women's equality and the so-called 'women's rights' agenda -- are questioning a female candidate's ability to get the job done. It's past time for the bullying to stop!"

Crouse continued, "As an outsider who came to Washington without political connections and became a presidential speechwriter and denizen of the West Wing halls of power, I'd like to offer the governor a bit of advice: Don't be intimidated by the ubiquitous 'data robots' who are like children's wind-up toys spewing out facts and information. They sound impressive, but I've found that they often lack wisdom, insight and vision; many of them haven't the foggiest idea what those facts mean, sometimes lack common sense and too often are unable to shape ideas into reality. Don't be impressed by 'inside-the-Beltway' lingo; far too often the short-hand language that the inside crowd uses to talk to each other obscures the fact that they know very little about the real world inhabited by mainstream Americans."

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Seven Years Later: How to Remember September 11

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship Ministries President Mark Earley.

September 11, 2008

Today, seven years after terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon, killing 184 people, a memorial to that attack will be dedicated. That it has taken seven years to erect this memorial is a testimony to our uncertainty as to how best to memorialize the events of that day.

In contrast to the Pentagon memorial, any memorial to the victims in New York is “years away.” Reinhold Martin of Columbia calls the situation at “Ground Zero” an “incredible mess.” The iconic status of the site, combined with “disagreements and competing priorities among government agencies, family groups, and Wall Street interests,” has made settling on a design near impossible.

While we debate what to do with stone and metal, there are some things we can do with our thoughts and actions right now.

I do know this: The best way to honor those who died has nothing to do with architecture.

One group is calling on Americans to make September 11 a “national day of charitable service.” They urge us to “volunteer, donate to a cause, or perform another good deed of [our] own choosing.

Charitable service is always a good idea, and any attempt to inspire volunteerism is welcome. So is the decision by the presidential candidates to pull campaign ads on this day. That kind of respectfulness is appropriate. But there is more to memorials than architecture and good deeds, as important as they are. The word memorial comes from the Latin word memor, which means “mindful,” “remembering,” and even “grateful.”

What should we remember? Of course, we remember the victims and their families. And we are grateful for those, such as the New York firefighters and police, who died trying to save others. But we should also be mindful of why they died. We should not let the passage of time dull us to the threat posed by those who perpetrated the attack, their distorted worldview, and their continuing determination to kill us. You can be sure that bin Laden, his followers, and would-be followers will be celebrating the seventh anniversary of these attacks and calling for more just like them.

Events like the Madrid and London bombings testify to the continuing appeal of al Qaeda-like jihadism. The cult of the suicide bomber is, unfortunately, alive and well in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Their resilience should come as no surprise: Their memories go back nearly 1,400 years. They bemoan events that took place before the discovery of America. Their attention span and patience easily accommodate seven years. The real question is: Do ours?

We should also remember that their inability -- for now -- to attack us on our own soil does not mean they cannot threaten our way of life. Recent months have highlighted our dependence on foreign oil -- oil that disproportionately comes from the part of the world where these enemies are most active.

While architecture can honor the past, the only memorial worthy of that name are the lessons we learn that keep the past from ever being repeated again.