Republicans unified — some Dems split on final approval — Loebsack and Bustos vote to empower terrorist ayatollahs in Iran
From the official published tallies of key votes related to the approval of the Obama / Iran nuclear weapons deal. Bill title well summarizes the issue at hand. Our annotations in italics.
H RES 411 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Sep-2015 5:22 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Finding that the President has not complied with section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015
245 to 186 pure party line vote
H R 3461 YEA-AND-NAY 11-Sep-2015 12:31 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran.
162 to 269 25 Dems join all 244 Republicans
H R 3460 RECORDED VOTE 11-Sep-2015 12:45 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran 247 to 186 2 Dems join all Republicans
Area congressmen Loebsack and Bustos in all cases voted straight party line — empowering the ayatollahs with money and relief from serious supervision of their weapons program.
The tactical structure of the House vote was correct, placing the main vote on the agreement up as a vote to approve. As explained in previous posts that is the proper structure under the Corker bill’s procedural provisions which the Congress and Obama agreed to, including all but one Senator * .
Eighty per cent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s Iran agreement. The question of approval, so presented, puts Republicans in the best public relations position with Democrats as it oputs them on record as approving which is also necessary to validate the agreement under the Corker process. In the Senate, Leader McConnell did not structure the vote that way, instead he allowed a process vote to the question of disapproval, as he framed the matter, to be filibustered.
A vote to approve would have put Democrats in the position of letting the vote be what it is, and failing, or filibustering a vote to approve the Iran agreement thus preventing a vote on Obama’s desired legislation because they knew it would not pass. Approval is required under Corker and the vote would have been consistent with the House. That McConnell did not structure it that way is incredible.
What now?
The usual suspects are saying nothing can be done. The provisions of the agreement, because of the failure of the Republican led Senate to stop it, move forward, with Obama claiming, however convoluted, Congressional validation . Consider this Washington Post report quoting the worthless Republican Senator from Tennessee :
But Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) indicated there isn’t much interest among Senate Republicans in taking steps to formally assert that Obama is in violation of his obligations under the law.
On the part of the weakly led Republican House, as regards the urgent matter of trying to stop Iran as best we can by stopping the implementation of the agreement — Boehner Opens Door To Suing Obama Over Iran Deal
As our illustrious Senior Editor remarked:
It’s the punchline to almost every John Boehner joke. President Obama uses it a lot. Every time Boehner capitulates to Obama and then goes out and gives one of his laughable “tough guy” tirades, it’s now a joke line all over Washington…”So, sue me, John”.
Brings down the “House” every time.
Question: What will happen sooner… a judge will rule, not on the merits of the suit, but on whether it can proceed…or…Iran nukes Israel?
More reading about the possibility of a lawsuit here.
Boehner’s allowing a vote on suspending sanctions, (third item above) which would if passed with Obama’s signature, (get real) would cause Iran to renege, was an appropriate move, more so for the record. But even with court backing on these matters, which is always iffy as to whether Obama would abide, court resolution could take many months at best — and in the meantime?
Our view is that it is important enough to inject the matter into continuing resolutions regarding spending authorizations that are to be voted on in coming weeks. Fund the must fund items, but exclude any authorization for funding of anything regarding implementation of the provisions of the Iran agreement including release of funds held under sanction, certain foreign service operations, any ongoing payments to United Nations administrative operations or anything innovative to stop Obama. This would be along with denial of funds for Obama’s unlawful immigration executive orders and funding of Planned Parenthood. Such proscriptions are popular and politically doable. If Obama wants to “shut down government” to ensure the ayatollahs are funded, to use tax payer dollars to support the invasion across our borders, to fund the largest abortion syndicate in the country then that is on him, then impeach the reprobate.
R Mall with DLH
- Senator Tom Cotton was the only Senator to vote against Corker-Cardin procedural bill. Senator Ted Cruz tried unsuccessfully to amend the worst provisions but failed. He voted for Corker-Cardin on final passage in the hopes that if the provisions were abided by delay of the Iran deal could be achieved. Having done so he is in a better position to tell McConnell “this is what we agreed to, now use your prerogatives to pursue enforcement” as predictably Obama is not in compliance with Corker, including the matter of full disclosure of all “side deals” related to the Iran agreement.
Another factor to add regarding the courts is that Republicans have approved over 300 of Obama’s judgeship nominations