Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share The Republican Party After Gorsuch.
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
The Republican Party After Gorsuch.
Episode 52. July 4, 2020
CLP Topic: Republican Vichy Collaborators
The Republican Party After Gorsuch.
Introduction.
This podcast is the introduction to a much longer article titled, The Republican Party After Gorsuch. The full article is available at www.clpnewsnetwork.com
Since 2008, anxious listeners have been calling into the Rush Limbaugh show asking him if it is time to panic about socialism. Rush always assures his listeners that he will tell them when it is time to panic.
Rush generally combines the issue of time to panic with another issue that there is no “pushback,” without ever identifying who or what organization is supposed to be “pushing back.”
Rush notes,
“There has yet to be any pushback on this…When there’s no pushback, you’re gonna feel alone. Not only is there not pushback, the few who do push back don’t get defended by very many people. You never see any pushback. You never see anybody responding, so you think that you must be in the minority.”
Tucker Carlson made the same statement about pushing back with regard to the riots,
“No one attempted to stop the Democratic power grab. Where are the protectors of the American Heritage.”
We use the recent Gorsuch decision to explain why the Republicans never confronted the Democrat socialists. (The Restoration of the American Natural Rights Republic: Correcting the Consequences of the Republican Party Abdication of Natural Rights and Individualism, Laurie Thomas Vass. GabbyPress, 2017).
The Republicans never pushed back against Black Lives Matter because the Democrats had effectively branded the Republican Party as racist, and the branding by the Democrats was permanently debilitating with a majority of voters on any issue related to social justice.
In 2008, the Republicans never pushed back against Obama when he branded them as a racist party, and in 2020, they never pushed back against the rioters. They never attempted to defend themselves or offer their own public relations brand.
Being branded as a racist political party did not detract them from the main mission of the National Republican Party to promote corporate cronyism, which they pursue as collaborators with the Democrats.
The Establishment Republican Party never pushed back against their branding, because that is not their job, as they see it. Their job is to preserve and protect their heritage of economic advantage.
We do not dwell on the legal intricacies of texturalism and originalism in the Gorsuch decision in Bostock, other than to note in passing that “because of” sex redefines the concept of individual natural rights.
Prior to Gorsuch, natural rights inured to individual citizens, because they were citizen members of the United States.
After Gorsuch, rights inure to gays and trans people because they are members of collectivist identity group, defined by Marxist theology as “oppressed” by the capitalist system.
Madison’s Constitution can be interpreted from any texturalist reading, because Madison’s Constitution does not contain the legal maximand of individual freedom in the Preamble.
As the Gorsuch ruling demonstrates, texturalism applied to the Preamble can mean anything. “A more perfect union” depends on whether a more perfect union means more centralized socialism or more state sovereignty freedom.
Sandra Sperino, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati, makes this point about texturalism in one of her articles.
She notes that the same text which is used by conservatives to,
“dismiss the statutory discrimination claims of all groups—black and brown workers, religious minorities, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ employees was used by Gorsuch to extend rights to these same groups.”
In other words, in one simple stroke, Gorsuch used texturalism to embrace the left’s Marxist ideology of group identity politics, and extended rights to oppressed groups, because of their sex.
View all episodes
By CLP News Network with Laurie Thomas VassEpisode 52. July 4, 2020
CLP Topic: Republican Vichy Collaborators
The Republican Party After Gorsuch.
Introduction.
This podcast is the introduction to a much longer article titled, The Republican Party After Gorsuch. The full article is available at www.clpnewsnetwork.com
Since 2008, anxious listeners have been calling into the Rush Limbaugh show asking him if it is time to panic about socialism. Rush always assures his listeners that he will tell them when it is time to panic.
Rush generally combines the issue of time to panic with another issue that there is no “pushback,” without ever identifying who or what organization is supposed to be “pushing back.”
Rush notes,
“There has yet to be any pushback on this…When there’s no pushback, you’re gonna feel alone. Not only is there not pushback, the few who do push back don’t get defended by very many people. You never see any pushback. You never see anybody responding, so you think that you must be in the minority.”
Tucker Carlson made the same statement about pushing back with regard to the riots,
“No one attempted to stop the Democratic power grab. Where are the protectors of the American Heritage.”
We use the recent Gorsuch decision to explain why the Republicans never confronted the Democrat socialists. (The Restoration of the American Natural Rights Republic: Correcting the Consequences of the Republican Party Abdication of Natural Rights and Individualism, Laurie Thomas Vass. GabbyPress, 2017).
The Republicans never pushed back against Black Lives Matter because the Democrats had effectively branded the Republican Party as racist, and the branding by the Democrats was permanently debilitating with a majority of voters on any issue related to social justice.
In 2008, the Republicans never pushed back against Obama when he branded them as a racist party, and in 2020, they never pushed back against the rioters. They never attempted to defend themselves or offer their own public relations brand.
Being branded as a racist political party did not detract them from the main mission of the National Republican Party to promote corporate cronyism, which they pursue as collaborators with the Democrats.
The Establishment Republican Party never pushed back against their branding, because that is not their job, as they see it. Their job is to preserve and protect their heritage of economic advantage.
We do not dwell on the legal intricacies of texturalism and originalism in the Gorsuch decision in Bostock, other than to note in passing that “because of” sex redefines the concept of individual natural rights.
Prior to Gorsuch, natural rights inured to individual citizens, because they were citizen members of the United States.
After Gorsuch, rights inure to gays and trans people because they are members of collectivist identity group, defined by Marxist theology as “oppressed” by the capitalist system.
Madison’s Constitution can be interpreted from any texturalist reading, because Madison’s Constitution does not contain the legal maximand of individual freedom in the Preamble.
As the Gorsuch ruling demonstrates, texturalism applied to the Preamble can mean anything. “A more perfect union” depends on whether a more perfect union means more centralized socialism or more state sovereignty freedom.
Sandra Sperino, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati, makes this point about texturalism in one of her articles.
She notes that the same text which is used by conservatives to,
“dismiss the statutory discrimination claims of all groups—black and brown workers, religious minorities, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ employees was used by Gorsuch to extend rights to these same groups.”
In other words, in one simple stroke, Gorsuch used texturalism to embrace the left’s Marxist ideology of group identity politics, and extended rights to oppressed groups, because of their sex.