Change… and Hope? Obama Says FOCA on Back Burner

Thank the good Lord for sending pestilences of economic and swine flu plagues. I hope these keep coming (Kendall has an article about the collapse of Pakistan). I shudder at what evil the Obama could be wreaking if times were good.

“You know, the — my view on — on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.”

Of course its a “moral issue”, that is just a mispelling.
Its a morale issue, after all he’s got to temper his attitude if he wants that honorary doctorate at Notre Dame.
Dont worry, FOCA will once again be high on his agenda as soon as he gets his funny hat.

I absolutely don’t understand why folks can’t see thru him, not only does the emperor have no clothes, he’s transparent too.  Lord have mercy.
Grannie Gloria

I think that the pro-life voice is having a good impact.  The “let’s find ways to stop the fighting and reduce the number of abortions” response is what I received in reply to a letter I sent to our lone Representative, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D).  She’s generally “pro-choice”, but she also said that FOCA is not on the front burner anymore.

This is not a declaration of victory, just an affirmation that prayer and witness are valuable.  FOCA-type extremism can be resisted.

Hadn’t he promised at the PP speech that FOCA wd be the first thing he signed after he was sworn in? 

I guess PP has kept quiet about any displeasure or criticism of the “you promised” variety…..

This is absolutely NOT what he said during the campaign, and NOT what he supported only weeks ago in forcing the US taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in Africa, and it certainly was NOT the children that were killed as a result of his votes as a Illinois Senator.

I said in comments on this very blog before and after the election that there was no way FOCA was ever going to get out of the Senate and on to the President’s desk anyway. The political backlash would be too great; it would set the pro-choice movement way back.

You know, when I first saw that header, my first thought was “what in the world does Obama have to do with the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans?”

I suspect that elements of FOCA will be pushed through piecemeal, ultimately netting the same result with less political backlash.  Look for these elements to be appended to large pieces of legislation for which there is pressure to be passed in a timely manner. FOCA by stealth.

Focus your attention on the mid-term elections in 2010.  The Dems in the Senate are one vote away from a filibuster proof majority.  (They will have it if whats-his-face from MN is seated.)  FOCA will be pushed by the left wing of the party and resisted by those whose concern is a second term for the O-man.  Once his second coronation is secured, all bets are off and the left wing legacy building and constitutional reconstruction will begin.

Just because FOCA doesn’t pass through our congress doesn’t mean that we won’t be saddled with it.  FOCA as well as attacks on our 2nd Ammendment Rights are being pursued through the “norming” process of the United Nations.  By signing on to international treaties we will knuckle under to the “norms” of the looney left out in other parts of the world.  John Bolton was a stalwart who protected us against a lot of this nonsense but he ain’t there no more.  Stay vigilant!

I think FOCA and getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act with suddenly find their way to top priority if the Democracts keep their solid grip on Congress after the 2010 election.

Grandmother and Andrew A I agree with you both…watch and wait…

You know, the — my view on — on involuntarily curing other people’s obvious mineral deficiencies¹, I think, has been very consistent. I think this is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are in favor of curing other people’s mineral deficiencies make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don’t want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about our freedom and that there’s no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that marksmen have to wrestle with and families and individual people have to wrestle with.

The reason I’m in favor of involuntary cures is because I don’t think markemen take that — that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their marksmanship instructors, with their clergy.

So — so that has been my consistent position.

< sarcasm > Heaven knows, I wrestle with that every day that I read another bit of insanity from individual members of the Loon Left® < /sarcasm >

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

<hr>
¹—cured by a sufficient quantity of lead (Pb) encapsulated in a lesser amount of copper (Cu) and administered intracranially at about 950f/s.

From NRL News—“The pro-abortion movement . . . hopes to use the structure of a federal health-care law to make abortion on demand accessible in every region of every state, paid for by taxes and by government-mandated private insurance premiums.” . . .  Democratic congressional leaders hope to leave as little time as possible between the time that they unveil the actual “health-care reform” legislation, which might occur in May, and the time that the House and Senate hold votes on the legislation, which is currently planned for June or July. . . . Crafters of the legislation may try to camouflage the pro-abortion mandates.  One mechanism for such concealment would be to use the legisslation to create a board or commission within the federal Executive Branch, on which Congress would confer future authority to declare specific “health services” to be mandated. . .