Skip to main content


Or is it more like GOP Purgatory. The R's have yet to find the correct words to say, in order to do their penance (for all that "Legit Rape" posturing in the last campaign). God's will and all that, you know. Geesh, what a dilemma.


And when VAWA got to "crunch time" -- Cantor told his rabble to just fall in line ...  Or Else.

Eeeeck ... talk about librul-pandering ultimatums.


In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of ‘Civil War’

by Katrina Trinko, nationalreview.com -- Feb 27, 2013

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.
[...]

This ought to be good.  The Purity Police are tying themselves up into "constitutional knots" -- over the ways and means with which the nation uses to protect Women from Violence. Have I got that right?

I suppose God's will, has something to do with this social-mores topic too? Maybe the NRA could give them some pointers, eh?


When Cantor decided to squelch the "unconstitutional talk" over in GOP-Tea Party Purgatory -- man did he step on a "head of pin" hornet's nest.

Because the folks over at Heritage.org found themselves caught between two opposing principles:

    "empowering Native Americans vs allowing the continued oppression of Native American women."


In either case, the libertarian folks over at Heritage.org, "object to VAWA" -- because it is just not right road to empowerment.  This empowerment of the "others."


“Violence Against Women Act” Violates the Constitution

by Paul J. Larkin, Jr., The Foundry. heritage.org -- Feb 14, 2013

The Senate-passed version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) violates Articles II and III of the Constitution.

The bill would authorize Indian tribal courts to adjudicate certain domestic violence criminal charges against non-Indians and to enter a final judgment authorizing the confinement of convicted offenders. At present, tribal courts cannot exercise that authority because, as the Supreme Court held in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe in 1978, tribal courts lack criminal authority over non-Indians.

Oliphant said that Congress could empower tribal courts to adjudicate criminal charges against non-Indians, but to do so, it must pass legislation giving tribal courts that power. Congress could do that by passing VAWA, but the problem with the Senate version of the legislation is that it violates Articles II and III of the Constitution in the process.
[...]


And the folks over at redstate.com are in virtual meltdown over this too -- about yet another republican-democrat coalition voting block (another Hastert-violating voting block) that allowed the constitutionally flawed VAWA to pass, at all.

And all with the vocal assistance of their once-champion no less -- Eric Cantor!


What are the Tea Party Purity-Standard-bearers to do?  If this travesty of empowering women is allowed to become the Law?  With real penalties.

Think of the children, why don't you Eric!   How will they ever learn the traditional ways of discipline, now?


GOP House Passes Unconstitutional Democrat VAWA Bill

by Daniel Horowitz, redstate.com -- Feb 28, 2013

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.
[...]

The following 27 members voted NO on both bills:

Bridenstine, Jim
Broun, Paul
Cotton, Tom
Culberson, John
DeSantis, Ron
Duncan, Jeff
Duncan, John
Fincher, Stephen
Garrett, Scott
Gohmert, Louie
Gosar, Paul
Hastings, Doc
Huelskamp, Tim
Jones, Walter
Lamborn, Doug
McClintock, Tom
Meadows, Mark
Mullin, Markwayne
Noem, Kristi
Olson, Pete
Petri, Thomas
Pompeo, Mike
Radal, Trey
Schweikert, David
Sensenbrenner, James
Stockman, Steve
Yoho, Ted


There you have it, the root cause -- "social engineering" -- it's that insidious liberal corrosive force to the American social fabric, at least according to Redstate Tea Party advocates, we are.


"Social engineering"  (aka Laws) that protect Women (and other targets of Hate) from Violence (domestic or otherwise) is just too much for their Purgatory-bound pea-brains to bare. What is a raving constitutional ranter to do?

Looks like it's going to be a long, long time, before they -- the loon brigade -- finds the right "magic words" to escape their self-imposed hell.

Eric Cantor's threats of Civil War, notwithstanding.  Et tu Eric, et tu?


Don't you know Cantor, that "Social engineering" is only OK -- when it is brainstormed and pushed through Congress, from the far-right-side of the Purgatory aisle?  Come-on, get with the purity-program, man!



EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site