Anti-establishment stirrings in the House…
[see UPDATE in ADDENDUM II]
…on whether to proceed with the vote on the Iran deal.
As has often been the case in the past, Ted Cruz is leading the way in the Senate, along with several conservatives in the House (Roskam of Illinois; Pompeo of Kansas and the rest of the House Freedom Caucus). The House doesn’t have a cloture or filibuster rule, so it is much easier to bring something to a vote there over minority opposition than it is in the Senate.
I haven’t seen any definitive statement coming down one way or the other from Boehner (just a general one about “healthy conversation”), although I doubt he’s on the side of the rebels—after all, he’s what they’re rebelling against.
In the Senate, quite a few people take the establishment tack. They are no surprise whatsoever—McConnell, Corker, and Pete Sessions (note: not Jeff Sessions, as I had originally and mistakenly thought, although his supposed inclusion had puzzled me):
“As I understand law, once Sept. 17 passes is it not the case that the president will take the view that he is free to go forward,” to lift sanctions [sic], Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, rejecting the proposal.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) also dismissed the proposal…
“You know what, I think it’s pretty clear that a month and a half ago we understood that Sept. 17 would be the drop-dead date. And the week we’re doing it is a little bit late to bring up the argument,” said House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas).
Here’s more of Corker’s reasoning about it. I can’t find more background to the Sessions quote, in which I assume that he explains why it’s “too late.” But when last I checked, September 9th was more than a week before September 17th.
Or perhaps the “too late” he’s talking about is a generic “too late”—meaning there just isn’t enough will among enough Republicans to stop Obama. For that, it was always too late.
[ADDENDUM: Andrew McCarthy writes that John Kerry’s letter to Congress on the Iran deal effectively admits that the deal supports terrorism:
Obviously, there is no disputing the Obama administration’s patent knowledge that much of the material support its deal will provide to the terror-sponsoring regime in Tehran will be funneled to these and other designated foreign terrorist organizations. This means yet another criminal statute prohibiting material support to terrorism is implicated (Section 2339B of the federal penal code).
That law states:
Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
The statute goes on to require proof that an accused person knows:
”¦ that the organization is a designated terrorist organization[,] ”¦ that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity[,] ”¦ or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism[.]
It is incontestable that President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their subordinates know all three things about Hezbollah and Hamas, even though the statute requires knowledge of only one of them to establish guilt.
It bears emphasizing that for all their absurd claims about how the president’s Iran deal reins in Iran’s nuclear program, even Obama administration officials feel compelled to admit that Iran will step up its material support to terrorism while it is receiving the windfall from the deal.
That is not just unconscionable; it is criminal.
How can Obama’s Iran deal conceivably be supported by anyone who claims to oppose international terrorism or support Israel?
I assume that last question of McCarthy’s is rhetorical. But just in case McCarthy wants an answer, here’s mine: the left specializes in saying that 2 + 2 = 5 if need be.]
[ADDENDUM II: There’s a report that Boehner is giving in to conservatives on this issue, postponing the vote and substituting a series of votes on three other resolutions in the House:
The first would declare that President Obama violated Corker-Cardin by failing to provide the side deals to Congress. The second will bar President Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. The third will be a resolution outside of Corker-Cardin to “approve” the Iran deal that all Republicans will vote no on. Most Democrats will vote yes.
We don’t know whether this report is true; at the moment it’s just a report from anonymous sources. Even if it comes to pass, in the Senate all three could be filibustered, or vetoed if they do manage to get to a vote. But they have the advantage of putting Democratic members of Congress on the record as having supported Obama’s Iran deal.]
After September 17, Obama is free to act in a lawless fashion and lift the sanctions by his own edict.
But will the American Big Banks that hold Iran’s $150b break the law and turn over the money to our enemy? I say not. Too risky.
I trust Ted and Andy McCarthy on the legal analysis.
Stakes are too high for us to cave to the lawless Obama.
What is Obama going to do the Big Banks if they don’t give Iran the money? Nuke’em?
The Senate MUST see all of the side deals; otherwise no vote.
The GOP would have been better off if Allison Grimes would have beat Mitch.
Cornhead:
Interesting point.
But my question is: do you really think anyone better would have replaced him?
Until there are more conservatives among the Republicans in Congress, the leadership will continue to be McConnell-esque.
Isn’t Pete Sessions a Boehner installed hack? If so, why surprised?
But Pete ain’t Jeff. So what does Sen. Jeff have to say?
sdferr:
Yikes, thanks for the catch!
I read it quickly and thought “et tu, Jeff?” I will change it. I couldn’t understand it when I thought it was Jeff. But it’s not Jeff, it’s Pete.
Thanks again.
Yes this issue shouldve been brought up earlier. But corker authored the bill. Shouldnt he have at least tried to make sure his bill was followed to the t? Just more failure theater for the senate. How prescient does tom cotton look now for being the sole vote against corker. Has he commented at all on the current situation?
Dick Cheney rails about Iran nuclear deal
Israel:
Actually, Cotton is scheduled to speak on Wolf Blitzer’s “Situation Room,” a show that is beginning right now (5 PM). He is about to speak.
Israel:
I’m listening to Cotton right now.
He is incredibly sharp, incredibly quick, and makes many excellent points, rapidly and clearly.
And yes, he agrees that Obama has not complied with the provisions in that he has refused to offer sufficient information on the side deals, and that means the clock has not begun to run.
I’m loving Jackie Masons statement about the deal.
“New York city restaurants have tougher inspections than Iran nuke deal.”
This would be hilarious if not true!
How can Obama’s Iran deal conceivably be supported by anyone who claims to oppose international terrorism or support Israel?
There are 28 Jewish members of Congress: 26 Democrats, one independent who caucuses with the Democrats and one Republican. Nine of them are senators and 19 are representatives.
Nine back the Iran deal, seven oppose it and 12 are undecided.
jack…
It’s funny because it IS true.
Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25 years
http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israel-wont-survive-next-25-years/
jklm:
That’s on the most recent thread.
Neo
When I posted this was the recent thread, then I saw you put new on.
Cornhead — Of course the banks will cave. Banking is a totally regulated industry. Obama will have them all shut down if they fail to go along with the release. They know it, so they will.
Richard Saunders:
Barack is out in 499 days. Little he can do. And the American people HATE this deal. They will hate the banks even more if they send the money back.
So if the banks have a decent argument to keep it (and avoid shareholders’ lawsuits), they will.
Also free capital of $100b plus on the banks’ balance sheets.
Ah, I pine for the good old days when members of congress dueled and used their fists to settle matters of honor. Cruz vs McConnell at 25 paces, Boehner can be Mitch’s second and Cruz can invite Palin to be his.
I know it seems to useless, but I have e-mailed my Congress Critters with the facts pointing out that ending the sanctions is the same as giving aid and comfort to terrorist organizations. The administration lackeys are admitting some of the money will be used to fund Hamas and Hezbollah.
The democrats in Congress are aiding and abetting a Federal crime. GOP lawmakers should remind banks of the law against aiding terrorist organizations. The GOP Presidential candidates should pledge to take a look at the banks who go along with Obama on this.
It amazes me how nobody addresses that this “deal” effectively guts the NPT – the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
190 states have subscribed. disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy–and is the basis for international cooperation on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons
Wonder if reading below will make sense despite subscribed. disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear
In a speech today in Tehran, Khamenei said: “If the sanctions are to be suspended, then the actions we are to take will be at the level of suspension, not structural actions on the ground.”
He also said that Iran engaged in negotiations in order to lift sanctions and if the sanctions are not lifted then there is no point in the nuclear deal.
He added that Iran would have continued its work on the 19,000 centrifuges that it has and that in a short time it could have 50,000 or 60,000 centrifuges.
I know it seems to useless,
If you had proof your Congress critters were actually reading and considering your letters, things would be different. You don’t have proof, though, at least not in the insurgency 4th generational warfare context.