Speaker 1: I've got to do this. I gotta tell you about this.
Speaker 1: It's in USA Today. It's a USA Today story, and
Speaker 1: it is the most incredible attempt uh to to advance
Speaker 1: the failure of liberal Democrat ideas on social welfare. Here's
Speaker 1: the headline, Fertility gap helps explain political divide. House Democratic
Speaker 1: leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco,
Speaker 1: has fewer children in her district than any other member
Speaker 1: of Congress. Thousand, seven hundred and twenty seven. Representative Chris Cannon, Republican, Utah,
Speaker 1: a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children in
Speaker 1: a Congressional district two hundred seventy eight thousand three. These
Speaker 1: two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide beach the congressional
Speaker 1: districts controlled by the major political parties. Republican House members
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of
Speaker 1: married people and lots of children. According to a USA
Speaker 1: Today analysis of two thousand five cents of this Bureau Info,
Speaker 1: GOP Congress members represent thirty nine point two million children
Speaker 1: younger than eighteen, about seven million more than Democrats. Republicans
Speaker 1: average seven thousand more children per district. Now, do any
Speaker 1: of you yet listening to this, have any idea where
Speaker 1: this is going? All right, you tell me where do
Speaker 1: you think this is going? Yep, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no no. Snardly, that's not that. That is never
Speaker 1: mentioned in this story. Hang with me. Many Democrats represent
Speaker 1: areas that have many single people and relatively Futuran. Democratic
Speaker 1: districts that have large numbers of children tend to be
Speaker 1: predominantly Hispanic or to a lesser extent, African American. Now,
Speaker 1: do you get an idea where this might be headed?
Speaker 1: The fertility gap? This fertility gap is crucial to understanding
Speaker 1: the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a
Speaker 1: professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These child bearing
Speaker 1: patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education, and
Speaker 1: child tax credits goop traditional families. Both sides are very
Speaker 1: pro kids, Brooks says, they just express it in different ways.
Speaker 1: Republicans are congenial to traditional families, which is clearly the
Speaker 1: best way for kids to grow up, but there are
Speaker 1: some kids who don't have that advantage, and Democrats are
Speaker 1: very concerned with helping those kids. No, they are not related.
Speaker 1: For one thing, they abort those kids did not. This
Speaker 1: story does not get to the real reason for this
Speaker 1: so called fertility gap, and that is the Democrats are
Speaker 1: aborting their kids in far greater numbers than Republicans do.
Speaker 1: Besides that, of the kids who survive a Democrat pregnancy,
Speaker 1: which is a risky pregnancy. You get pregnant and you're
Speaker 1: a Democrat, your child's chances of survival are remarkably less
Speaker 1: than other people. Well, the fertility gap here to me
Speaker 1: is a crucial element and understanding that. But of the
Speaker 1: children who survive a Democrat pregnancy, they have not been
Speaker 1: helped by Democrats. In the last fifty years, all of
Speaker 1: these great society programs busted up the families that this
Speaker 1: story is winging its hands over. Oh it's horrible, they
Speaker 1: think of family. Why did that happen? It's because Democrats
Speaker 1: came with programs, feel good programs, feeling good about ourselves, programs,
Speaker 1: look at how we care. We're good people, we see
Speaker 1: suffering and we want to help, And so they became
Speaker 1: essentially surrogant fathers. The government became surrogant father. The real
Speaker 1: father had no reason to hang around. Uh and and
Speaker 1: so you had all these broken families. In fact, I
Speaker 1: go so I'll go even further. I I think that
Speaker 1: Democrats enjoy they need victims. Let's face it, and this
Speaker 1: is another problem presented to the fertility gap. They're fewer
Speaker 1: and fewer victims. Why do you think they're so interested
Speaker 1: in illegal immigrants. They need victims, They need poor people,
Speaker 1: they need people who have not reached their potential, they
Speaker 1: need people who are dependent. They want to keep as
Speaker 1: many of these people in a dependent state because they
Speaker 1: think they'll vote for Democrats in that state. Children in
Speaker 1: Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty
Speaker 1: and with single parents than kids in GOP districts. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's try to figure out why then and do what
Speaker 1: really needs to be done to help these kids. Let's
Speaker 1: figure out why instead of the point of this story
Speaker 1: is absurd. Jose Serranto, Congressman Democrat New York two hundred
Speaker 1: twenty seven thousand children and his Bronx district the tenth
Speaker 1: most in the House. Only of those two seven thousand
Speaker 1: kids live with married parents. By contrast, of children live
Speaker 1: with married parents in Chris Cannon's Central Utah district. These
Speaker 1: numbers are amazing. Cannon says, I see now where Jose
Speaker 1: is coming from. What do you mean where Jose is
Speaker 1: coming from. Cannon used to have a locker next to
Speaker 1: Serranto at the congressional gym, considers him a friend. The
Speaker 1: needs of kids in his district are just not the
Speaker 1: same as the needs of children in my district. So
Speaker 1: you see where this is a Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: make a claim we need more social programs, we need
Speaker 1: more welfare, we need more attention to Democrat districts because
Speaker 1: the kids in those districts are in such poor circumstances.
Speaker 1: The biggest gaps in American politics are religion, race, and
Speaker 1: marital status, says Democratic poster and Greenberg. Uh, the story
Speaker 1: it never gets to where I'm sure you thought it
Speaker 1: was headed, and that is abortion, the fertility gap focus, well,
Speaker 1: alternative lifestyles too, Yeah, we we have you have to
Speaker 1: throw that in there. I mean, that's that's that's clearly
Speaker 1: gonna be a factor too, and why there would be
Speaker 1: fewer kids per Democrat congressional district. But this is a
Speaker 1: if true. This is a total indictment of Democrat lifestyles, attitudes, politics,
Speaker 1: and yet it's portrayed as something Republicans are mean spirited
Speaker 1: and hoarding all the goodies for their kids and it's
Speaker 1: not needed because Marianne and Louisville, Ohio. Hi Maryannam glad
Speaker 1: you called. Hi, Rush. It's good to talk to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You know, I don't want to upstate and
Speaker 1: the real news of the day, but I did have
Speaker 1: another point to make it. Very cool of you, very good. Um.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid you. I'm a little worried about you. I'm
Speaker 1: afraid you might be on the news with him tonight
Speaker 1: as a headline said Democrats aboard their children. I was
Speaker 1: really surprised to hear you say that. I mean, I
Speaker 1: have believed this for a long time, but I would
Speaker 1: I didn't expect who you say it so and don't
Speaker 1: back down and make a wimpy apology. Uh, I have
Speaker 1: no intention of backing the Why why I don't get
Speaker 1: your point. You're worried that the Democrats are gonna put
Speaker 1: me on the news tonight is saying they aboard their
Speaker 1: kids and that's why there's a fertility gap. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: afraid that. You know, like you read the story and
Speaker 1: it said nothing about that, and you picked up the
Speaker 1: real point of it. I thought too, but we would
Speaker 1: the table shows tonight. They're gonna let them. I don't
Speaker 1: worry about what they say about the day I start.
Speaker 1: I mean, I really, you're worried about me being discredited
Speaker 1: as a as a list. You're in a devotee of
Speaker 1: this program. You're worried about seeing me being criticized it
Speaker 1: And I understand that it's the maternal instinct. Uh. But
Speaker 1: but let's stick with me here. If this you think
Speaker 1: I'm just making that up. You think I'm just pulling
Speaker 1: that out of thin air, you think it's just my opinion.
Speaker 1: I think it's true. Well would you like some would
Speaker 1: you like would you like some backup for it? Well?
Speaker 1: What do you mean? I have it right here in
Speaker 1: my formerly nicotes right here from March one of this year,
Speaker 1: two thousand six. Who's Your Daddy? It's a piece by
Speaker 1: James Toronto in the Best of the Web blog, which
Speaker 1: is the Opinion journal dot com website. In the new
Speaker 1: issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Philip Longman of the liberal
Speaker 1: New American Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics,
Speaker 1: the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are
Speaker 1: likely to make Western society is including the US, more conservative.
Speaker 1: I reported this, and I talked about this back in
Speaker 1: March when it came out, specifically those who practice patriarchy,
Speaker 1: which Longman defines not in the crude feminist sense of
Speaker 1: men dominating women, but as a quote particular value system
Speaker 1: that not only requires men to marry, but to marry
Speaker 1: a woman of proper station. Those people that practice that
Speaker 1: are outbreeding those who do not. In the United States,
Speaker 1: the percentage of women born in a late thirties who
Speaker 1: remained childless was near ten percent. By comparison, nearly twenty
Speaker 1: percent of women born in the late fifties are reaching
Speaker 1: the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The
Speaker 1: greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are
Speaker 1: drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the
Speaker 1: sixties and seventies, and liberal writing this will leave no
Speaker 1: genetic legacy normal their emotional or psychological influence on the
Speaker 1: next general ration compare with that of their parents. Conservatives
Speaker 1: are having more babies. That's what was said in the
Speaker 1: USA Today story. This this guy, this is the Philip Longman,
Speaker 1: New American Foundation says that fewer and fewer liberal women
Speaker 1: influenced by feminism at all are having fewer and fewer children,
Speaker 1: and therefore there's less opportunity to breed little liberals. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna be fewer of them. Meanwhile, conservatives are having
Speaker 1: kids in the old patriarchal sense, the nuclear family unit.
Speaker 1: They're influencing the way their kids grow up, and they're
Speaker 1: simply at some point in the future, conservative kids are
Speaker 1: gonna out number of Liberals and later on in this story.
Speaker 1: H Later on in this story, this of course dovetails
Speaker 1: with the Row effect i e. Ro versus Wade. Now
Speaker 1: abortion has been brought into this not by me, but
Speaker 1: by demo demographers. This of course dovetails with the Row effect,
Speaker 1: which surely magnifies the political consequences. Support for unrestricted abortion
Speaker 1: defines the content perary Democratic Party more than any other
Speaker 1: issue does, and abortion advocates open contempt toward those who
Speaker 1: disagree makes it hard for the latter to be Democrats.
Speaker 1: Longman draws a lesson from military history. After the agricultural revolution,
Speaker 1: in more and more places in the world, fast breeding
Speaker 1: tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any
Speaker 1: remaining slow breeding hunters and gatherers. It mattered that your
Speaker 1: warriors were fierce and valiant in battle. It mattered more
Speaker 1: that there were lots of them. And there's simply fewer
Speaker 1: and fewer Liberals having kids, which would have to soume
Speaker 1: fewer and fewer liberal offspring growing up. And this is
Speaker 1: something we covered in March. Now, this USA Today story
Speaker 1: didn't mention this Today, which I was stunned about and
Speaker 1: stunned by. They focused on a pure social welfare angle
Speaker 1: of it, and try to say that the poor kids,
Speaker 1: and they're fewer of them in democratic districts. Somehows the
Speaker 1: problem of Republicans when it's when it's just things. But
Speaker 1: I appreciate your being concerned for me. So few people
Speaker 1: are so a few people. Most people. You have to understand, Mary,
Speaker 1: and most people would love to see me plummet to
Speaker 1: the depths of obscurity. And you have, you have called,
Speaker 1: and you have you have expressed genuine love and heartfelt
Speaker 1: concern and even fear for what might happen. But you
Speaker 1: fear not because whatever they say, we can back it up. Here,
Speaker 1: Can I say one more thing? By all means, I
Speaker 1: just want to tell Jane Fonda to go back to
Speaker 1: doing aerobic because we the women of this country, say no,
Speaker 1: thank you to her. Okay, stop and think about that
Speaker 1: for a second. Now, you know, here here, now, this
Speaker 1: is an excellent point. Jane Fonda and who Steinham and
Speaker 1: these other babes are doing this new feminist radio network.
Speaker 1: Well they're on four stations nationwide, of course, nation You
Speaker 1: know what their topics are, sewing, child care, fung SWI
Speaker 1: I'm not no, no, no no, I'm not making this up.
Speaker 1: The point is here are these women to say women
Speaker 1: are being driven away from traditional talk radio? Why because
Speaker 1: they don't like the subject matter, They don't like confrontation,
Speaker 1: they don't like dealing with issues. Well, what the hell
Speaker 1: was the feminist movement all about? Here are these feminist
Speaker 1: icons who are now going to go on the radio
Speaker 1: and try to replicate nineteen fifties and sixties high school
Speaker 1: homet class as a way of attracting women. If that's
Speaker 1: not the greatest and final nail in the coffin of
Speaker 1: Middleton feminism from these founders anyway, then I don't know
Speaker 1: what is uh. You know, this job is hard. I
Speaker 1: just make it look easy because I'm good the Great
Speaker 1: make everything they do look easy. That's why everybody thinks
Speaker 1: they can do what the great do. Um. But I understand, uh,
Speaker 1: totally your point, Beth in Act in Massachusetts. I'm glad
Speaker 1: you called and waited. Welcome to the program. Hi. I
Speaker 1: just wanted to say, if you like the Darwinian theory
Speaker 1: that the liberals love so much to their reproductive habits,
Speaker 1: they'll be driving themselves into extinction eventually. Will the rest
Speaker 1: of us conservative Christians continue to reproduce sur survival of
Speaker 1: the fittest? Yes, Darwinnian theory? Yes? How can liberals evolve
Speaker 1: if there are no liberals exactly? Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: live in Massachusetts, and it's interesting to hear you say
Speaker 1: these things because I've noticed it that, you know, anywhere
Speaker 1: I go, the liberals I know, have one child. If
Speaker 1: they have a girl, she doesn't want to have children.
Speaker 1: Or if they have a boy, he's seminized. This poor
Speaker 1: guy has been just emasculated on drugs or whatever. And
Speaker 1: I just don't see them having grandchildren. And then they
Speaker 1: lamented as they get older. You know, where are my grandchildren?
Speaker 1: Well you never embraced life, and life isn't going to
Speaker 1: embrace you. Well, whatever the reasons, I mean, whatever they
Speaker 1: factors here, we've now got Census data Bureau, Census Bureau
Speaker 1: data that that that confirms this in a demographic fashion. Uh.
Speaker 1: We're not sitting here making this stuff up. What we've
Speaker 1: learned today from USA today, via the Census Bureau is
Speaker 1: that the per congressional district, there are seven thousand fewer
Speaker 1: kids in Democrat districts on average nationwide than Republican districts.
Speaker 1: We've also learned that most of them are in one
Speaker 1: are many of them are in a single parent homes
Speaker 1: and are very poor, and most are Hispanic and black,
Speaker 1: those who are poor and fit this profile. Uh. It's
Speaker 1: not hard to draw conclusions here, folks. Liberalism doesn't work,
Speaker 1: flat out just doesn't work. And a number of cities
Speaker 1: in this country established that. For the rest of you
Speaker 1: who might be concerned over the statements I made today,
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are aborting children and that's why there's
Speaker 1: a fertility gap. Uh. And even though the piece that
Speaker 1: I just shared with you by the very liberal uh
Speaker 1: his name again, Philip Longman, the New American Foundation, let's
Speaker 1: let's hit you with this, uh. Friday, May twelve, two
Speaker 1: thousand six again James Taranto Opinion Journal dot com. Judicial
Speaker 1: Watch has been researching the Clinton administration's policy and r
Speaker 1: U forty six the abortion drug and the final exhibit
Speaker 1: begins on page sixty of the PDF document linked above,
Speaker 1: and they do have the link here. Uh makes for
Speaker 1: fascinating reading. It is written by Ron Weddington. Ron Weddington,
Speaker 1: who served as co counsel along with his better half
Speaker 1: Sarah Weddington, in successfully arguing Row versus Wade. The cover
Speaker 1: letter dated January, but the year seems to be an
Speaker 1: error since the address ee, Betsy Wright, is identified as
Speaker 1: working for the Transition Team Clinton Transition Team. In it,
Speaker 1: Weddington tells Betsy Wright of the four page missive to
Speaker 1: the President to be that follows that I am going
Speaker 1: to try to get it published. Uh. Would you like
Speaker 1: to hear some excerpts from this letter that Ron Weddington,
Speaker 1: co council on Roll versus Wade wrote to then President
Speaker 1: elect Bill Clinton. You want to hear it? These are excerpts.
Speaker 1: I don't think you're gonna go very far in reforming
Speaker 1: the country until we have a better educated and healthier
Speaker 1: and wealthier population. You can start immediately to eliminate the
Speaker 1: barely educated, the unhealthy, and poor segment of our country. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these
Speaker 1: unfortunate people. Crime, drugs, and disease are already doing that.
Speaker 1: The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced,
Speaker 1: but increased by the birth of millions of babies to
Speaker 1: people who can't afford to have babies. There, I've said it.
Speaker 1: It's what we all know is true. We lost a
Speaker 1: lot of ground during the Reagan Bush religious orgy. We
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of time left. The biblical exhortation
Speaker 1: to be fruitful and multiply was directed towards a small
Speaker 1: try surrounded by enemies. We are long past that our
Speaker 1: survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes.
Speaker 1: We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners.
Speaker 1: We don't need more cheap later. We don't need more
Speaker 1: poor babies. This appeared at the Opinion Journal dot com
Speaker 1: on March or May the twelfth, I'm sorry of this year.
Speaker 1: It was written to then President elect Clinton uh sometime
Speaker 1: in to Betsy Wright from the co Council of the
Speaker 1: ro VERSUS Wait now what's he advocating here. He's advocating
Speaker 1: abortion and having a litmus test on who shouldn't who
Speaker 1: shouldn't have kids. And I'm not talking. I'm not indicting
Speaker 1: Clinton here. Don't misunderstand. I'm just saying this is somebody
Speaker 1: thought he was on Clinton's side. This is a co
Speaker 1: counsel in ro versus way, this is a Democrat. So
Speaker 1: it's best to get this stuff out in the open.
Speaker 1: If you think I'm out on a limb suggesting that
Speaker 1: there's a fertility gap at a lack of replacement level
Speaker 1: liberals out there because of a lack of liberal births
Speaker 1: and the abortion is not a factor in it, You've
Speaker 1: got to have your head examined. It is the foremost
Speaker 1: important social issue on the Democrat agenda and has been
Speaker 1: for as long as I've been following this stuff. So
Speaker 1: I appreciate the concern you people have for me out there,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna get into all this stuff unless there's
Speaker 1: back up for it.