[sauropod]

Last week, the House was scheduled to adopt the Resolution of Disapproval of the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement – the only legally binding action available to Congress under the Corker Act. Once again, the House Freedom Caucus leadership threatened to combine with House Democrats to defeat the Resolution, forcing the House leadership to abandon it in favor of a symbolic and legally meaningless vote. Ironically, while Harry Reid and Senate Democrats blocked a vote on the Resolution of Disapproval in the Senate, the House Freedom Caucus leadership was instrumental in blocking its consideration in the House.

I hadn't heard about this. What was the rationale for the HFC blocking consideration of this in the House?

[1010RD]

Some conservative members felt it was weak sauce.

[mrsmith]

The rationale was that there should be no vote on the Disapproval until after congress had seen all the deals involved as the Corker bill required.
And Obama still refuses to turn over what he calls “side deals”.

Also the Disapproval would be vetoed and fail.

[Tupelo]

I had not heard of this either. I suspect McClintock is using a sentence uttered somewhere, sometime by one the HFC members as an excuse. Common liberal tactic used to divert attention. You know, kinda like; “Oh look over there, A Confederate Flag”.
At this stage of the game, I trust Jim Jordan a hell of a lot more than I would anyone in the California delegation. Republican or Democrat.

[batterycommander]

There is an important difference between free trade and fair trade.

[LS]

It’s utterly meaningless. It’s like a “censure” while the guy stays in office. The real vote was the “symbolic and legally meaningless vote.” Except it wasn’t either symbolic or meaningless if the GOP had actually tried to win. THERE ARE WAYS TO WIN. I outlined a couple yesterday. But they are very costly. Does the GOP ever want to pay a price to win?

[CharlesOConnell]

To Congressman McClintock's Staff:

This article http://www.cfl-sacramento.org/surprising-ingredient-to-creating-a-pro-life-culture/ shows something about how persuading the majority of the American public from the bottom up about the goodness of life, reaching them where they are, necessarily involves emphasizing the advantage to the Mother of carrying children to term.

(The video with the elderly man at the bottom is extremely shrewd: "Dogma Dump: If only we could open their heads and tell them what we know, they would automatically covert to our position.")

The top-down approach of the pro-life professional leadership has largely ignored the long term implications of reverting to an older model of primarily emphasizing the rights of the child, which are guaranteed once the Mother is correctly evaluating her self interest for life.

We will be seeing in future, across-the-board acknowledgement of how the professional pro-life leadership is poorly investing its political capital, dissipating its temporary advantage perhaps due to a sense of "windfall mania"--"We're in the money, we've got a lot of what it takes to get along!", forgetting how their movement has been the poor stepchild of politics as expressed in this article http://www.with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies.org/Powell.html .

How the Democracy Alliance Contributed to Obama's Election

The Conservative Message Machine's Money Matrix

It's only a matter of time before even right-thinking Americans cease to be so viscerally dismayed by the videos. Meanwhile the professional pro-life leadership will have taken their movement a number of years backwards in convincing the political middle of the rightness of their cause.

 

[okie01]

What was the rationale for the HFC blocking consideration of this in the House?

Because the better path was to declare the President in violation of the Corker-Cardin Bill by not providing all the side agreements for Congressional review. Then, the sanctions would've stayed in place.

Passing a "Resolution of Disapproval" was exactly what the Corker-Cardin Bill was set up to accomplish -- allowing the GOP to object, but insuring that the sanctions would be lifted and the Iran deal would go forward.

I.e., the Resolution was Kabuki theater, while a vote declaring Corker-Cardin void would've constituted real action.

I can't imagine McClintock's reasons for objecting.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington (Sep 28, 2015 – 59:47) OR “Mr Cruz Goes To Washington”

Ted Cruz couldn’t get anyone in the Senate to back him tonight as he tried to get a ban on Planned Parenthood funding and a linkage of the Iran Nuclear deal in a government funding bill. He stood alone on the Senate floor:
Cruz’s amendment would place a one-year ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood. It would also ban the Obama administration from using funds from the short-term bill to implement the Iran nuclear deal or any “assessed contributions” to the United Nations until lawmakers receive the “side deals” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The “side deals” have been a key point of contention among opponents of the deal. Cruz and House Republicans have suggested that the 60-day congressional review period for the Iran nuclear deal hasn’t started because the administration hasn’t given lawmakers the agreements.

After the procedural back-and-forth, Cruz slammed Republican leadership, suggesting they repeatedly “surrender” to President Obama.

“You know, President Obama has negotiated a catastrophic nuclear deal with Iran. Republican leadership goes on television all the time and rightly says this is a catastrophic deal,” he added. “I would suggest that if we actually believed the words that are coming out of their mouths, then we should be willing to use any and all constitutional authorities.”

After this Cruz launched into an hour speech, one that Mark Levin just tweeted out saying it’s a MUST LISTEN.