Tags: rush | obama | war

Rush Is Right — No Compromise With Obama

By    |   Wednesday, 04 March 2009 08:40 AM

Fox News panel member Morton Kondracke seems obsessed with the notion that bipartisanship is the key to progress, congeniality, brotherhood, and polity among competing Solons. Compromising one's political ideology for the sake of unity — being bipartisan in other words — appears to Kondracke to be the solution to such horrors as gridlock and partisan dissension.


When two parties are so diametrically opposed to each other's basic beliefs, the idea that there is some middle ground between right and wrong, as Lincoln put it, is at the very least ludicrous.

In today's world, the chasm between the political and moral creeds of the two parties is so wide as to prohibit any possibility of bridge building between them.

As David Horowitz and co-author Ben Johnson put it, the Democratic Party is "the party of death," a description now being vivified by its leader, Barack Obama, the champion of unlimited abortion rights who is certain to go down in history as posterity's executioner in chief.

How can there exist any semblance of bipartisanship between two political parties who are absolutely divided on the most basic question as the right to life for all human beings, born and unborn?

If there can be no agreement on this first question there can be no agreement on anything else. The Republican Party at it very roots is pro-life, and everything it does is motivated by that core belief.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has no respect for the idea that life is a gift from God not subject to legislative whims. In their view, we live at the sufferance of the state which assumes the power to decide who should live and who should die — a decision based solely on the convenience of the state.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the matter of the state-sanctioned practice of murdering the unborn who in the eyes of the party of Jefferson and Jackson, are merely inconvenient bundles of tissues and incipient skeletal structures easily and lawfully disposed of under the abortionists’ scalpels and tweezers.

To them the convenience of the mother and of society is all that matters. And from that brutal philosophical approach to the right to life it is barely a stretch to the practice of euthanasia involving the terminally ill and the old and infirm.

A society that abrogates to itself the right to decide who among the unborn shall live and who shall die can also decide who among all the living shall be allowed to survive and who shall have their lives terminated at the whim and caprice of the state.

We are not far removed from that eventuality. A case can easily be made for terminating the lives of those no longer able to care for themselves or no longer able to contribute to the coffers of the state.

The elderly in this age of Social Security are a drain on an already stressed public Treasury. Since they constitute a large and growing unproductive segment of society now demanding what amounts to public welfare, they remain a threat to society's fiscal well-being.

The ultimate answer: a strap and a gurney and needle in the arm. We put old dogs to sleep peacefully. Why not extend that courtesy to our elderly as well?

Remember, it's not some unseen God who is the source and ruler of life. It is the state.

There is no more basic question than the right to life. Everything begins with that. If the parties are divided on that matter, they must be divided on all else because all rights begin with the right to live.

Back in my days on Capitol Hill there was a controversy over what I used to call the CRAP question — the idea that in the face of the Democratic Party's socialistic legislative agenda the Republicans needed to come up with their own versions of socialist programs.

They called it the Constructive Republican Alternative Program or CRAP for short. It was meant to show that we could be just as Marxist in our agenda as were the Democrats in theirs, only our socialism would be more efficient. That was bipartisanship.

I asked if the Democrats were pushing a bill to kill my mother what would be the constructive Republican alternative? A bill to merely break her legs? Once you accepted the notion that the state had the right to kill or maim my mother the only question that remained would be the extent of the harm the state would be allowed to authorize.

That's where bipartisanship can lead you when, as is now the case, the divide between the parties is so wide and so deep. How do you bridge it when one of the parties is unalterably pro-death and the other militantly pro-life?

Rush Limbaugh has sounded the clarion call, urging conservatives to engage in an all-out battle with this administration's Marxist agenda. My great-grandfather's Irish Brigade Civil War battle flag bore the legend "Faugh 'a Ballagh" — clear the way.

That's as good as a battle cry for our times. To hell with bipartisanship. Faugh 'a Ballagh!

Phil Brennan writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist (Cato) for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He is a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com.

© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fox News panel member Morton Kondracke seems obsessed with the notion that bipartisanship is the key to progress, congeniality, brotherhood, and polity among competing Solons. Compromising one's political ideology for the sake of unity — being bipartisan in other words —...
Wednesday, 04 March 2009 08:40 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved