That is the title of this fantastic Rush Limbaugh segment:
RUSH: I've gotta do this. I've gotta tell you about this. It's in USA Today. It's a USA Today story, and it is the most incredible attempt to advance the failure of liberal Democrat ideas on social welfare. Here's the headline: "Fertility Gap Helps Explain Political Divide -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of Congress: 87,727. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398. These two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide between the congressional districts controlled by the major political parties. Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA Today analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month. GOP Congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district."
Do any of you listening to this have any idea where this is going? (interruption) All right, you tell me. Where do you think this is going? (interruption) No, no, no, no, no, Snerdley. It's not that. That is never mentioned in this story. Hang with me. "Many Democrats represent areas that have many single people and relatively few children. Democratic districts that have large numbers of children tend to be predominantly Hispanic or, to a lesser extent, African-American." Now do you get an idea where this is going? "This 'fertility gap' is crucial to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These childbearing patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education and child tax credits, he says.
"'Both sides are very pro-kids. They just express it in different ways,' Brooks says. 'Republicans are congenial to traditional families, which is clearly the best way for kids to grow up. But there are some kids who don't have that advantage, and Democrats are very concerned with helping those kids.'" No they are not! For one thing, they abort those kids. Note this story does not get to the real reason for this so-called fertility gap, and that is the Democrats are aborting their kids in far greater numbers than Republicans do. Besides that, of the kids that survive a Democrat pregnancy -- which is a risky pregnancy; you get pregnant, and you're a Democrat, your child's chances of survival are remarkably less than other people.
Well? The fertility gap here, to me, is a crucial element in understanding that, but of the children who survive a Democrat pregnancy, they have not been helped by Democrats in the last 50 years. All of these Great Society programs busted up the families that this story is wringing its hands over: Oh, it's horrible! There are single families. Why did that happen? It's because Democrats came up with programs, feel-good programs, feeling-good-about-ourselves programs. Look at how we care. We're good people. We see suffering and we want to help -- ad so, they became essentially surrogate fathers, the government became surrogate fathers.
The real father had no reason to hang around, and so you had all these broken families. In fact, I'll go even further. I think that Democrats enjoy it. They need victims, let's face it, and this is another problem presented by the fertility gap. There are fewer and fewer victims. Why do you think they're so interested in illegal immigrants? They need victims. They need poor people. They need people who have not reached their potential. They need people who are dependent. They want to keep as many of these people in a dependent state because they think they'll vote for Democrats in that state. Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts.
…
RUSH: You think I'm just pulling that out of thin air; you think it's just my opinion?
CALLER: No, I think it's true.
RUSH: Would you like some backup for it?
CALLER: Well, what do you mean?
RUSH: I have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: Right here, from March 1st of this year, 2006, "Who's Your Daddy?" It's piece by James Taranto in the Best of the Web blog, which is the OpinionJournal.com website. "In the new issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Phillip Longman of the liberal New America Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics -- the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are likely to make Western societies, including the U.S., more conservative." I reported this and I talked about this back in March when it came out. "Specifically, those who practice patriarchy -- which Longman defines not in the crude feminist sense of men dominating women, but as 'a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station' -- are outbreeding those who do not: 'In the United States, . . . the percentage of women born in the late 1930s who remained childless was near 10%. By comparison, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having had children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s..." This is a liberal writing this.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: "...will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents." Conservatives are having more babies. That's what was said in the USA Today story. This guy, this Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation, says that fewer and fewer liberal women, influenced by feminism, et al, are having fewer and fewer children, and therefore there's less opportunity to breed little liberals, there are just going to be fewer of them. Meanwhile, conservatives are having kids in the old patriarchal sense, the nuclear family unit. They're influencing the way their kids grow up, and they're simply at some point in the future, conservative kids are going to outnumber liberals, and later on in this story...
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah! Later on in this story: "This of course dovetails with the Roe effect," i.e., Roe vs. Wade. Now abortion has been brought into this, not by me, but by demographers. "This of course dovetails with the Roe effect, which surely magnifies the political consequences. Support for unrestricted abortion defines the contemporary Democratic Party more than any other issue does, and abortion advocates' open contempt toward those who disagree makes it hard for the latter to be Democrats. Longman draws a lesson from military history after the agricultural revolution: 'In more and more places in the world, fast-breeding tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any remaining, slow-breeding hunters and gatherers. It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle; it mattered more that there were lots of them,'" and there were simply fewer and fewer liberals having kids, which you'd have to assume fewer and fewer liberal offspring growing up, and this is something we covered in March. Now, this USA Today story didn't mention this today, which I was stunned by.
…
RUSH: For the rest of you who might be concerned over the statements I made today that the Democrats are aborting children and that's why there's a fertility gap -- and even though the piece that I just shared with you by the very liberal (What's his name again?) Philip Longman of the New America Foundation -- let's hit you with this. Friday, May 12th, 2006. Again, James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com.
"Judicial Watch has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on RU-486, the abortion drug, and the final exhibit -- it begins on page 60 of the PDF document linked above," and they do have the link here, "-- makes for fascinating reading. It is written by Ron Weddington, who served as co-counsel, along with his better half, Sarah, in successfully arguing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that imposed abortion policies that remain among the world's most permissive. The cover letter (p. 60) is dated Jan. 6, 1992, but the year seems to be an error, since the addressee, Betsey Wright, is identified as working for the transition team.
"In it, Weddington tells Wright of the four-page missive to the 'President-to-Be' that follows that 'I am going to try to get [it] published.'" Would you like to hear some excerpts from this letter that Ron Weddington, co-counsel on Roe vs. Wade, wrote to then president-elect Bill Clinton? You want to hear it? These are excerpts: "'I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population. . . . You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that.
The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies. There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true . . . We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left. . . . The biblical exhortation to 'be fruitful and multiply' was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies. We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies.'" This appeared at the OpinionJournal.com on May the 12th of this year.
It was written to then president-elect Clinton sometime in 1992 to Betsy Wright from the co-counsel of the Roe vs. Wade. Now, what's he advocating here? He's advocating abortion and having a litmus test on who should and who shouldn't have kids. Now, I'm not indicting Clinton here, don't misunderstand, I'm just saying this is somebody who thought he was on Clinton's side. This is co-counsel on Roe vs. Wade. This is a Democrat. So it's best to get this stuff out in the open. If you think I'm out on a limb suggesting that there's a fertility gap and a lack of replacement level liberals out there because of a lack of liberal births, and that abortion is not a factor in it, you've got to have your head examined. It is the foremost important social issue on the Democrat agenda and has been for as long as I've been following this stuff. So I appreciate the concern you people have for me out there, but I don't get into all this stuff unless there's backup for it.
Read the Background Material...
(USAToday: 'Fertility gap' helps explain political divide)
(WSJ: Who's Your Daddy? - James Taranto)
(WSJ: Swift Note Veterans Against Youth- James Taranto)
(Judicial Watch: The Clinton RU-486 Files- .pdf)
Recent Comments