Cantor threatens “civil war” on conservatives; demands (and “wins”) passage of Democrat Senate bill
And you thought it was only Boehner who was willing to caucus with Democrats against his own party rank and file. Katrina Trinko, NRO:
House majority leader Eric Cantor is increasingly frustrated with a group of House Republicans who are working against the leadership, and he’s not afraid of voicing his dismay.
In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, they’d cause “civil war” in the ranks.
Cantor’s comment irked some Republican aides, who told National Review Online that such strong language is inappropriate. In recent days, some conservatives have been upset about the Senate’s version of VAWA, saying that parts of the bill are unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, Cantor’s warning may have had an effect. When the bill came to the floor on Wednesday, only nine Republicans voted against the rule to take up the bill.
Tensions between backbenchers and the leadership, however, are evident. Behind the scenes, House Republicans raised concerns about VAWA throughout the day. Eventually, though, the rule passed, 414–9, and the House plans a final vote on the Senate’s version of VAWA [today].
Among those to vote against the rule that will bring a vote to the floor were Karl Rove targets Georgia Senate candidate Paul Broun and potential Iowa Senate candidate Steve King.
This bill, the “Violence Against Women Act [VAWA],” in its Senate version does at least four egregious things: federalize domestic violence laws (already ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 2000), taking that power from the states; expand the parameters of “domestic violence” to include “unpleasant speech” and emotional abuse, both terms left deliberately vague to ensnare as many “offenders” as possible (and in potential violation of the 1st Amendment); grant authority to Native American Federation courts to prosecute non-Native American US citizens; and finally, redefine women to include men, homosexuals, the transgendered, and prisoners — while granting illegals suffering from domestic violence immigration rights.
But perhaps worst of all, conviction under such federal law will negate the right to gun ownership — meaning that men, women, homosexuals, and the transgendered can all lose their 2nd Amendment rights for inflicting “emotional abuse” on a partner, or even for engaging in “unpleasant speech.”
— Which I suppose trumps the “shall not be infringed” portion of the amendment’s text in the Bill of Rights.
Here’s how Daniel Horowitz at Red State describes this dangerous and Orwellian leftwing legislation, actively pushed by the GOP-led Republican House (many of whom voted “no” once the Democrats and the 87 Republicans who voted for passage were tallied, in much the same way McCain et al, used the Hagel confirmation vote):
Earlier today, the Republican-controlled House passed the Senate version of the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The Senate bill expands “coverage” to illegal aliens, men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners. It also expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women.
The final bill passed with the support of 87 Republicans. Before voting on this bill, the House considered a substitute amendment that removed some of the new anomalies. It was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and 60 Republicans. It is important to note that about half of the GOP noes were opposing the bill precisely because it did not contain the new social engineering provisions. So even if all the conservatives had supported the House version, there were enough liberal Republicans to block it. Moreover, even had the GOP version passed the House, the conferees would have inserted the extra provisions in conference anyway.
[…] The only thing the federal government can do to protect women is to pass a universal right to carry bill. Everything else is just big government demagoguery. There is no reason a GOP-controlled House should have brought this bill before the body, much less the Senate passed version. If they are concerned about the political optics, they should have just ignored it and changed the subject to…let’s say gas and food prices. Now that is a novel idea. Giving the Democrats two full days to bludgeon you with gender warfare during debate time is evidently more politically prudent than repealing the ethanol mandate or some other useful legislation.
What is the purpose of a GOP-controlled House anyway?
You’ve heard me say this now on countless occasions, but I’m going to repeat it yet again: we legal conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians have no representation in the US Congress. And that’s because the current GOP leadership is filled with cowards who will trade away our rights under threat of bad press.
After all, who wants to vote for Violence Against Women, right? And that’s all legislation is any more, is whatever perception can be created by its title.
The Republican Party is dead. Or rather, those who want it can keep it. It’s but the Democrats’ whorish little bitch, anyway — and I don’t put out for fascists or socialists, no matter how many baubles they dangle before me.
update: Hot Air runs with the headline “Hastert Rule, strike three: House passes Senate’s Violence Against Women Act bill with majority of Republicans opposed,” which points out that Boehner’s house has now passed legislation on three separate occasion where the leadership caucused with the Democrats to defeat its own Party.
But as I noted in the post proper, the real pressure here was from Cantor demanding a vote be allowed in the first place. Once the lockstep Democrats and the certain liberal Republicans broke ranks, that freed up a number of Republicans to vote no on a bill they knew would pass once it made it to the floor vote.
This is the disingenuous, perception-based politics that comes from political “pragmatism,” and many of us simply will not be fooled by it.
Again, take the Hagel confirmation. Rand Paul voted for the filibuster to stop the confirmation vote; John McCain and a few other Republicans allowed the vote to go forward, knowing the Democrats had the numbers to confirm Hagel. Therefore, Paul’s filibuster vote is far more important than his later “yes” vote, just as McCain’s filibuster vote is far more important than his later “no” vote.
We know who these people are. And the sad truth is, the GOP base has no real representation in Congress, and in fact the establishment GOP is doing every thing in its power to coalesce in principle (such as it is) with the left.
And though many of you don’t like to hear it, it is what it is.