Very Interesting Jack
Posted on 05/08/2015 8:26:49 AM PDT by Jack Black
As many of you know, I'm a big fan of Ted Cruz, but when he does something wrong, it's important to call him on it. In this case he, along with Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, voted for a bill that will effectively allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran.
Normally, here's how treaties work: the President negotiates a treaty with another country, like the deal he is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons development. Once the treaty is negotiated, it's submitted to the Senate. Two thirds of the Senate has to vote to approve, or ratify, the treaty. If two thirds do not support it, it is not binding.
But the bill the Congress sent to the President turns things on its head. It will allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran, and unless Congress objects with a 2/3 vote within 30 days, the President's actions are allowed to stand. See the reversal? Formerly, the President needed a 2/3 vote to act, and now the Congress needs a 2/3 vote to stop him from acting. And be assured the Democrats will never let the Republicans get that many votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Ted Cruz: Why I voted YES for Corker Iran bill
TheRightscoop | 5/7/2015 | RightScoop
Posted on 05/07/2015 3:55:30 PM PDT by gwgn02
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3287473/posts
Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe that charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. These responsibilities must not be abrogated, though any non-governmental organization (NGO) not publicly financed is free to pursue them as well.
And there is also Libertarian Christianity:
Libertarian Christianity is a facet of Christian theology. Its advocates believe that it is the most biblically, rationally, and practically correct legal and political philosophy. This type of libertarianism derives from a specific blending of systematic theology and biblical theology.[1] Advocates claim to be Christians first, and libertarians second. As libertarians they believe that all secular governments exist to protect natural rights, and only to protect natural rights; and they believe that natural rights are necessarily defined in terms of private property, at least in the legal and political arena. --- Although they readily acknowledge the distinction between their legal / political philosophy and the rest of their theology, they are suspicious of any attempt at separating the two, because separating the two leaves the visible Church without a viable, Bible-based legal philosophy.Libertarian Christians claim to be distinct from secular libertarians and Christian libertarians. They claim to be distinct from secular libertarians by deriving their libertarian legal and political philosophy from the Bible, rather than from secular sources. They claim to be distinct from Christian libertarians through their derivation of Bible-based legal philosophy using biblical hermeneutics that are different from those used by Christian libertarians.[2]
Neither of which I have ever heard of.
His tactical sense is questionable in my opinion. "Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.
I don't think voting for bad legislation to give a slight delay to something is a reasonable tradeoff.
As I've suggested before without this bill the Senate could still debate and pass a bill after they see what Obama has come up with. And yes, Obama would veto it, and it might not get over-ridden, all of which would be great optics for election year.
The Senate failing to get even close to 2/3 needed to reject this will not provide a useful moment to the GOP.
Now the left will argue (as others on this thread already have) that the Senate has effectively given "advice and consent" to this treaty, and so the USA will be bound by it even after his miserableness the Won has gone back to his life of 'choom' and down-low sex in Hawaii.
The Senate won’t vote 2/3rds to reject it?
I assume that all the Dems will march in lockstep behind their leader, Obama, just like they always do. So, no, I don’t think Mitch can peel enough Dems off to get to 2/3, and probably some of the GOP are questionable too.
Rand will vote to approve. There’s one.
“but the plain facts are that no treaty has been presented, and this was a procedural vote. “
The bill provides the bases for the treaty. Basically, the senate gave its advice and consent.
Mark Levin explains the truth about what happened and it is not for the good:
Last Hope to Stop Iran: #HouseConservatives-Daniel Horowitz
5-7-2015
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/05/last-hope-to-stop-iran-houseconservatives
” McConnell on the other hand wants to be seen as “bringing democrats and republicans together” to pass legislation that says “WE DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL”. Now let’s ask ourselves why Obama supported McConnell’s version and also ask ourselves why did every last democrat vote for it. I mean what’s the harm in voting to say we DISAPPROVE of Obama’s Iran Deal?
The answer is because it gives Obama a clear field to VETO; it permits him to exercise his veto power. Why is a veto bad here? Because it requires 2/3’s of Congress to override it - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Here’s the crib note summary:
MCCONNELL VERSION —> OBAMA VETOS —> OBAMA GETS HIS DEAL
CRUZ VERSION —> NO CHANCE OF VETO —> OBAMA DEAL NOT LEGITIMATE
CAN ANYTHING BE DONE NOW?
Yes.
Cruz’ people are working with conservatives in the House to pass an amendment that makes the House Bill similar to the Cruz Version of the Senate Bill.
Therefore, in reconciliation between House and Senate, it may become CRUZ v. MCCONNELL.”
OK, you nailed it with logical deduction, and pure reason. Now we will know who really WANTS to know the truth.
” OK, I’ll play, seeing as you’ve insulted me as “cerebrally challenged””: “
Oh no Jack, in 80,000 posts I have never attacked YOU, nor would I. I agree with you at least 90% of the time. Probably even higher than that.
Thank you for clearing that up. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Once again, proving that Ted Cruz isn’t trying to screw around with us.
Thanks! Sorry, I seemed thin skinned in my response.
It’s a wonder we all aren’t insane, given the situation America is in : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.