September 27, 2021 • 19 mins
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.”
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/09/27/the_fertility_gap_democrats_aborting_their_kids3/
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I've got to do this. I gotta tell you about this.
It's in USA Today. It's a USA Today story, and
it is the most incredible attempt uh to to advance
the failure of liberal Democrat ideas on social welfare. Here's
(00:22):
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. Thousand, seven hundred and twenty seven. Representative Chris Cannon, Republican, Utah,
(00:44):
a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children in
a Congressional district two hundred seventy eight thousand three. These
two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide beach the congressional
districts controlled by the major political parties. Republican House members
(01:05):
overwhelmingly overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of
married people and lots of children. According to a USA
Today analysis of two thousand five cents of this Bureau Info,
GOP Congress members represent thirty nine point two million children
younger than eighteen, about seven million more than Democrats. Republicans
(01:28):
average seven thousand more children per district. Now, do any
of you yet listening to this, have any idea where
this is going? All right, you tell me where do
you think this is going? Yep, no, no, no, no,
no no no. Snardly, that's not that. That is never
mentioned in this story. Hang with me. Many Democrats represent
(01:52):
areas that have many single people and relatively Futuran. 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 might be headed?
The fertility gap? This fertility gap is crucial to understanding
(02:15):
the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a
professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These child bearing
patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education, and
child tax credits goop traditional families. Both sides are very
pro kids, Brooks says, they just express it in different ways.
(02:40):
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 related.
For one thing, they abort those kids did not. This
(03:00):
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 who survive a Democrat pregnancy,
which is a risky pregnancy. You get pregnant and you're
(03:24):
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 and understanding that. But of the
children who survive a Democrat pregnancy, they have not been
(03:45):
helped by Democrats. In the last fifty years, all of
these great society programs busted up the families that this
story is winging its hands over. Oh it's horrible, they
think of family. Why did that happen? It's because Democrats
came with programs, feel good programs, feeling good about ourselves, programs,
look at how we care. We're good people, we see
(04:07):
suffering and we want to help, And so they became
essentially surrogant fathers. The government became surrogant father. The real
father had no reason to hang around. Uh and and
so you had all these broken families. In fact, I
go so I'll go even further. I I think that
Democrats enjoy they need victims. Let's face it, and this
(04:29):
is another problem presented to the fertility gap. They're 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
(04:51):
Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty
and with single parents than kids in GOP districts. Okay, well,
let's try to figure out why then and do what
really needs to be done to help these kids. Let's
figure out why instead of the point of this story
is absurd. Jose Serranto, Congressman Democrat New York two hundred
(05:13):
twenty seven thousand children and his Bronx district the tenth
most in the House. Only of those two seven thousand
kids live with married parents. By contrast, of children live
with married parents in Chris Cannon's Central Utah district. These
numbers are amazing. Cannon says, I see now where Jose
(05:34):
is coming from. What do you mean where Jose is
coming from. Cannon used to have a locker next to
Serranto at the congressional gym, considers him a friend. The
needs of kids in his district are just not the
same as the needs of children in my district. So
you see where this is a Democrats are going to
make a claim we need more social programs, we need
more welfare, we need more attention to Democrat districts because
(05:56):
the kids in those districts are in such poor circumstances.
The biggest gaps in American politics are religion, race, and
marital status, says Democratic poster and Greenberg. Uh, the story
it never gets to where I'm sure you thought it
(06:18):
was headed, and that is abortion, the fertility gap focus, well,
alternative lifestyles too, Yeah, we we have you have to
throw that in there. I mean, that's that's that's clearly
gonna be a factor too, and why there would be
fewer kids per Democrat congressional district. But this is a
if true. This is a total indictment of Democrat lifestyles, attitudes, politics,
(06:42):
and yet it's portrayed as something Republicans are mean spirited
and hoarding all the goodies for their kids and it's
not needed because Marianne and Louisville, Ohio. Hi Maryannam glad
you called. Hi, Rush. It's good to talk to you.
Thank you. You know, I don't want to upstate and
the real news of the day, but I did have
another point to make it. Very cool of you, very good. Um.
(07:06):
I'm afraid you. I'm a little worried about you. I'm
afraid you might be on the news with him tonight
as a headline said Democrats aboard their children. I was
really surprised to hear you say that. I mean, I
have believed this for a long time, but I would
I didn't expect who you say it so and don't
back down and make a wimpy apology. Uh, I have
(07:32):
no intention of backing the Why why I don't get
your point. You're worried that the Democrats are gonna put
me on the news tonight is saying they aboard their
kids and that's why there's a fertility gap. Well, I'm
afraid that. You know, like you read the story and
it said nothing about that, and you picked up the
real point of it. I thought too, but we would
the table shows tonight. They're gonna let them. I don't
(07:53):
worry about what they say about the day I start.
I mean, I really, you're worried about me being discredited
as a as a list. You're in a devotee of
this program. You're worried about seeing me being criticized it
And I understand that it's the maternal instinct. Uh. But
but let's stick with me here. If this you think
I'm just making that up. You think I'm just pulling
that out of thin air, you think it's just my opinion.
(08:15):
I think it's true. Well would you like some would
you like would you like some backup for it? Well?
What do you mean? I have it right here in
my formerly nicotes right here from March one of this year,
two thousand six. Who's Your Daddy? It's a piece by
James Toronto in the Best of the Web blog, which
(08:38):
is the Opinion journal dot com website. In the new
issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Philip Longman of the liberal
New American Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics,
the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are
likely to make Western society is including the US, more conservative.
(09:01):
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 quote particular value system
that not only requires men to marry, but to marry
a woman of proper station. Those people that practice that
(09:22):
are outbreeding those who do not. In the United States,
the percentage of women born in a late thirties who
remained childless was near ten percent. By comparison, nearly twenty
percent of women born in the late fifties are reaching
the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The
greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are
(09:46):
drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the
sixties and seventies, and liberal writing this will leave no
genetic legacy normal their emotional or psychological influence on the
next general ration compare with that of their parents. Conservatives
are having more babies. That's what was said in the
USA Today story. This this guy, this is the Philip Longman,
(10:08):
New American Foundation says that fewer and fewer liberal women
influenced by feminism at all are having fewer and fewer children,
and therefore there's less opportunity to breed little liberals. They're
just gonna be fewer of them. Meanwhile, conservatives are having
kids in the old patriarchal sense, the nuclear family unit.
(10:29):
They're influencing the way their kids grow up, and they're
simply at some point in the future, conservative kids are
gonna out number of Liberals and later on in this story.
H Later on in this story, this of course dovetails
with the Row effect i e. Ro versus Wade. Now
abortion has been brought into this not by me, but
by demo demographers. This of course dovetails with the Row effect,
(10:53):
which surely magnifies the political consequences. Support for unrestricted abortion
defines the content perary 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,
(11:15):
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's simply fewer
and fewer Liberals having kids, which would have to soume
fewer and fewer liberal offspring growing up. And this is
(11:38):
something we covered in March. Now, this USA Today story
didn't mention this Today, which I was stunned about and
stunned by. They focused on a pure social welfare angle
of it, and try to say that the poor kids,
and they're fewer of them in democratic districts. Somehows the
problem of Republicans when it's when it's just things. But
I appreciate your being concerned for me. So few people
(12:01):
are so a few people. Most people. You have to understand, Mary,
and most people would love to see me plummet to
the depths of obscurity. And you have, you have called,
and you have you have expressed genuine love and heartfelt
concern and even fear for what might happen. But you
fear not because whatever they say, we can back it up. Here,
(12:21):
Can I say one more thing? By all means, I
just want to tell Jane Fonda to go back to
doing aerobic because we the women of this country, say no,
thank you to her. Okay, stop and think about that
for a second. Now, you know, here here, now, this
is an excellent point. Jane Fonda and who Steinham and
these other babes are doing this new feminist radio network.
(12:46):
Well they're on four stations nationwide, of course, nation You
know what their topics are, sewing, child care, fung SWI
I'm not no, no, no no, I'm not making this up.
The point is here are these women to say women
are being driven away from traditional talk radio? Why because
(13:09):
they don't like the subject matter, They don't like confrontation,
they don't like dealing with issues. Well, what the hell
was the feminist movement all about? Here are these feminist
icons who are now going to go on the radio
and try to replicate nineteen fifties and sixties high school
homet class as a way of attracting women. If that's
not the greatest and final nail in the coffin of
Middleton feminism from these founders anyway, then I don't know
(13:32):
what is uh. You know, this job is hard. I
just make it look easy because I'm good the Great
make everything they do look easy. That's why everybody thinks
they can do what the great do. Um. But I understand, uh,
totally your point, Beth in Act in Massachusetts. I'm glad
(13:55):
you called and waited. Welcome to the program. Hi. I
just wanted to say, if you like the Darwinian theory
that the liberals love so much to their reproductive habits,
they'll be driving themselves into extinction eventually. Will the rest
of us conservative Christians continue to reproduce sur survival of
the fittest? Yes, Darwinnian theory? Yes? How can liberals evolve
(14:19):
if there are no liberals exactly? Well, you know, I
live in Massachusetts, and it's interesting to hear you say
these things because I've noticed it that, you know, anywhere
I go, the liberals I know, have one child. If
they have a girl, she doesn't want to have children.
Or if they have a boy, he's seminized. This poor
guy has been just emasculated on drugs or whatever. And
(14:40):
I just don't see them having grandchildren. And then they
lamented as they get older. You know, where are my grandchildren?
Well you never embraced life, and life isn't going to
embrace you. Well, whatever the reasons, I mean, whatever they
factors here, we've now got Census data Bureau, Census Bureau
data that that that confirms this in a demographic fashion. Uh.
(15:05):
We're not sitting here making this stuff up. What we've
learned today from USA today, via the Census Bureau is
that the per congressional district, there are seven thousand fewer
kids in Democrat districts on average nationwide than Republican districts.
We've also learned that most of them are in one
are many of them are in a single parent homes
and are very poor, and most are Hispanic and black,
(15:28):
those who are poor and fit this profile. Uh. It's
not hard to draw conclusions here, folks. Liberalism doesn't work,
flat out just doesn't work. And a number of cities
in this country established that. 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
(15:50):
a fertility gap. Uh. And even though the piece that
I just shared with you by the very liberal uh
his name again, Philip Longman, the New American Foundation, let's
let's hit you with this, uh. Friday, May twelve, two
thousand six again James Taranto Opinion Journal dot com. Judicial
(16:13):
Watch has been researching the Clinton administration's policy and r
U forty six the abortion drug and the final exhibit
begins on page sixty of the PDF document linked above,
and they do have the link here. Uh makes for
fascinating reading. It is written by Ron Weddington. Ron Weddington,
(16:34):
who served as co counsel along with his better half
Sarah Weddington, in successfully arguing Row versus Wade. The cover
letter dated January, but the year seems to be an
error since the address ee, Betsy Wright, is identified as
working for the Transition Team Clinton Transition Team. In it,
(16:55):
Weddington tells Betsy Wright of the four page missive to
the President to be that follows that I am going
to try to get it published. Uh. Would you like
to hear some excerpts from this letter that Ron Weddington,
co council on Roll versus Wade wrote to then President
elect Bill Clinton. You want to hear it? These are excerpts.
(17:19):
I don't think you're gonna go very far in reforming
the country until we have a better educated and healthier
and wealthier population. You can start immediately to eliminate the
barely educated, the 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.
(17:39):
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 towards a small
try surrounded by enemies. We are long past that our
(18:04):
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 later. We don't need more
poor babies. This appeared at the Opinion Journal dot com
on March or May the twelfth, I'm sorry of this year.
(18:24):
It was written to then President elect Clinton uh sometime
in to Betsy Wright from the co Council of the
ro VERSUS Wait now what's he advocating here. He's advocating
abortion and having a litmus test on who shouldn't who
shouldn't have kids. And I'm not talking. I'm not indicting
Clinton here. Don't misunderstand. I'm just saying this is somebody
(18:45):
thought he was on Clinton's side. This is a co
counsel in ro versus way, 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 at a lack of replacement level
liberals out there because of a lack of liberal births
and the abortion is not a factor in it, You've
got to have your head examined. It is the foremost
(19:08):
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'm gonna get into all this stuff unless there's
back up for it.
I've got to do this. I gotta tell you about this.
It's in USA Today. It's a USA Today story, and
it is the most incredible attempt uh to to advance
the failure of liberal Democrat ideas on social welfare. Here's
(00:22):
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. Thousand, seven hundred and twenty seven. Representative Chris Cannon, Republican, Utah,
(00:44):
a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children in
a Congressional district two hundred seventy eight thousand three. These
two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide beach the congressional
districts controlled by the major political parties. Republican House members
(01:05):
overwhelmingly overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of
married people and lots of children. According to a USA
Today analysis of two thousand five cents of this Bureau Info,
GOP Congress members represent thirty nine point two million children
younger than eighteen, about seven million more than Democrats. Republicans
(01:28):
average seven thousand more children per district. Now, do any
of you yet listening to this, have any idea where
this is going? All right, you tell me where do
you think this is going? Yep, no, no, no, no,
no no no. Snardly, that's not that. That is never
mentioned in this story. Hang with me. Many Democrats represent
(01:52):
areas that have many single people and relatively Futuran. 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 might be headed?
The fertility gap? This fertility gap is crucial to understanding
(02:15):
the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a
professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These child bearing
patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education, and
child tax credits goop traditional families. Both sides are very
pro kids, Brooks says, they just express it in different ways.
(02:40):
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 related.
For one thing, they abort those kids did not. This
(03:00):
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 who survive a Democrat pregnancy,
which is a risky pregnancy. You get pregnant and you're
(03:24):
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 and understanding that. But of the
children who survive a Democrat pregnancy, they have not been
(03:45):
helped by Democrats. In the last fifty years, all of
these great society programs busted up the families that this
story is winging its hands over. Oh it's horrible, they
think of family. Why did that happen? It's because Democrats
came with programs, feel good programs, feeling good about ourselves, programs,
look at how we care. We're good people, we see
(04:07):
suffering and we want to help, And so they became
essentially surrogant fathers. The government became surrogant father. The real
father had no reason to hang around. Uh and and
so you had all these broken families. In fact, I
go so I'll go even further. I I think that
Democrats enjoy they need victims. Let's face it, and this
(04:29):
is another problem presented to the fertility gap. They're 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
(04:51):
Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty
and with single parents than kids in GOP districts. Okay, well,
let's try to figure out why then and do what
really needs to be done to help these kids. Let's
figure out why instead of the point of this story
is absurd. Jose Serranto, Congressman Democrat New York two hundred
(05:13):
twenty seven thousand children and his Bronx district the tenth
most in the House. Only of those two seven thousand
kids live with married parents. By contrast, of children live
with married parents in Chris Cannon's Central Utah district. These
numbers are amazing. Cannon says, I see now where Jose
(05:34):
is coming from. What do you mean where Jose is
coming from. Cannon used to have a locker next to
Serranto at the congressional gym, considers him a friend. The
needs of kids in his district are just not the
same as the needs of children in my district. So
you see where this is a Democrats are going to
make a claim we need more social programs, we need
more welfare, we need more attention to Democrat districts because
(05:56):
the kids in those districts are in such poor circumstances.
The biggest gaps in American politics are religion, race, and
marital status, says Democratic poster and Greenberg. Uh, the story
it never gets to where I'm sure you thought it
(06:18):
was headed, and that is abortion, the fertility gap focus, well,
alternative lifestyles too, Yeah, we we have you have to
throw that in there. I mean, that's that's that's clearly
gonna be a factor too, and why there would be
fewer kids per Democrat congressional district. But this is a
if true. This is a total indictment of Democrat lifestyles, attitudes, politics,
(06:42):
and yet it's portrayed as something Republicans are mean spirited
and hoarding all the goodies for their kids and it's
not needed because Marianne and Louisville, Ohio. Hi Maryannam glad
you called. Hi, Rush. It's good to talk to you.
Thank you. You know, I don't want to upstate and
the real news of the day, but I did have
another point to make it. Very cool of you, very good. Um.
(07:06):
I'm afraid you. I'm a little worried about you. I'm
afraid you might be on the news with him tonight
as a headline said Democrats aboard their children. I was
really surprised to hear you say that. I mean, I
have believed this for a long time, but I would
I didn't expect who you say it so and don't
back down and make a wimpy apology. Uh, I have
(07:32):
no intention of backing the Why why I don't get
your point. You're worried that the Democrats are gonna put
me on the news tonight is saying they aboard their
kids and that's why there's a fertility gap. Well, I'm
afraid that. You know, like you read the story and
it said nothing about that, and you picked up the
real point of it. I thought too, but we would
the table shows tonight. They're gonna let them. I don't
(07:53):
worry about what they say about the day I start.
I mean, I really, you're worried about me being discredited
as a as a list. You're in a devotee of
this program. You're worried about seeing me being criticized it
And I understand that it's the maternal instinct. Uh. But
but let's stick with me here. If this you think
I'm just making that up. You think I'm just pulling
that out of thin air, you think it's just my opinion.
(08:15):
I think it's true. Well would you like some would
you like would you like some backup for it? Well?
What do you mean? I have it right here in
my formerly nicotes right here from March one of this year,
two thousand six. Who's Your Daddy? It's a piece by
James Toronto in the Best of the Web blog, which
(08:38):
is the Opinion journal dot com website. In the new
issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Philip Longman of the liberal
New American Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics,
the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are
likely to make Western society is including the US, more conservative.
(09:01):
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 quote particular value system
that not only requires men to marry, but to marry
a woman of proper station. Those people that practice that
(09:22):
are outbreeding those who do not. In the United States,
the percentage of women born in a late thirties who
remained childless was near ten percent. By comparison, nearly twenty
percent of women born in the late fifties are reaching
the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The
greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are
(09:46):
drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the
sixties and seventies, and liberal writing this will leave no
genetic legacy normal their emotional or psychological influence on the
next general ration compare with that of their parents. Conservatives
are having more babies. That's what was said in the
USA Today story. This this guy, this is the Philip Longman,
(10:08):
New American Foundation says that fewer and fewer liberal women
influenced by feminism at all are having fewer and fewer children,
and therefore there's less opportunity to breed little liberals. They're
just gonna be fewer of them. Meanwhile, conservatives are having
kids in the old patriarchal sense, the nuclear family unit.
(10:29):
They're influencing the way their kids grow up, and they're
simply at some point in the future, conservative kids are
gonna out number of Liberals and later on in this story.
H Later on in this story, this of course dovetails
with the Row effect i e. Ro versus Wade. Now
abortion has been brought into this not by me, but
by demo demographers. This of course dovetails with the Row effect,
(10:53):
which surely magnifies the political consequences. Support for unrestricted abortion
defines the content perary 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,
(11:15):
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's simply fewer
and fewer Liberals having kids, which would have to soume
fewer and fewer liberal offspring growing up. And this is
(11:38):
something we covered in March. Now, this USA Today story
didn't mention this Today, which I was stunned about and
stunned by. They focused on a pure social welfare angle
of it, and try to say that the poor kids,
and they're fewer of them in democratic districts. Somehows the
problem of Republicans when it's when it's just things. But
I appreciate your being concerned for me. So few people
(12:01):
are so a few people. Most people. You have to understand, Mary,
and most people would love to see me plummet to
the depths of obscurity. And you have, you have called,
and you have you have expressed genuine love and heartfelt
concern and even fear for what might happen. But you
fear not because whatever they say, we can back it up. Here,
(12:21):
Can I say one more thing? By all means, I
just want to tell Jane Fonda to go back to
doing aerobic because we the women of this country, say no,
thank you to her. Okay, stop and think about that
for a second. Now, you know, here here, now, this
is an excellent point. Jane Fonda and who Steinham and
these other babes are doing this new feminist radio network.
(12:46):
Well they're on four stations nationwide, of course, nation You
know what their topics are, sewing, child care, fung SWI
I'm not no, no, no no, I'm not making this up.
The point is here are these women to say women
are being driven away from traditional talk radio? Why because
(13:09):
they don't like the subject matter, They don't like confrontation,
they don't like dealing with issues. Well, what the hell
was the feminist movement all about? Here are these feminist
icons who are now going to go on the radio
and try to replicate nineteen fifties and sixties high school
homet class as a way of attracting women. If that's
not the greatest and final nail in the coffin of
Middleton feminism from these founders anyway, then I don't know
(13:32):
what is uh. You know, this job is hard. I
just make it look easy because I'm good the Great
make everything they do look easy. That's why everybody thinks
they can do what the great do. Um. But I understand, uh,
totally your point, Beth in Act in Massachusetts. I'm glad
(13:55):
you called and waited. Welcome to the program. Hi. I
just wanted to say, if you like the Darwinian theory
that the liberals love so much to their reproductive habits,
they'll be driving themselves into extinction eventually. Will the rest
of us conservative Christians continue to reproduce sur survival of
the fittest? Yes, Darwinnian theory? Yes? How can liberals evolve
(14:19):
if there are no liberals exactly? Well, you know, I
live in Massachusetts, and it's interesting to hear you say
these things because I've noticed it that, you know, anywhere
I go, the liberals I know, have one child. If
they have a girl, she doesn't want to have children.
Or if they have a boy, he's seminized. This poor
guy has been just emasculated on drugs or whatever. And
(14:40):
I just don't see them having grandchildren. And then they
lamented as they get older. You know, where are my grandchildren?
Well you never embraced life, and life isn't going to
embrace you. Well, whatever the reasons, I mean, whatever they
factors here, we've now got Census data Bureau, Census Bureau
data that that that confirms this in a demographic fashion. Uh.
(15:05):
We're not sitting here making this stuff up. What we've
learned today from USA today, via the Census Bureau is
that the per congressional district, there are seven thousand fewer
kids in Democrat districts on average nationwide than Republican districts.
We've also learned that most of them are in one
are many of them are in a single parent homes
and are very poor, and most are Hispanic and black,
(15:28):
those who are poor and fit this profile. Uh. It's
not hard to draw conclusions here, folks. Liberalism doesn't work,
flat out just doesn't work. And a number of cities
in this country established that. 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
(15:50):
a fertility gap. Uh. And even though the piece that
I just shared with you by the very liberal uh
his name again, Philip Longman, the New American Foundation, let's
let's hit you with this, uh. Friday, May twelve, two
thousand six again James Taranto Opinion Journal dot com. Judicial
(16:13):
Watch has been researching the Clinton administration's policy and r
U forty six the abortion drug and the final exhibit
begins on page sixty of the PDF document linked above,
and they do have the link here. Uh makes for
fascinating reading. It is written by Ron Weddington. Ron Weddington,
(16:34):
who served as co counsel along with his better half
Sarah Weddington, in successfully arguing Row versus Wade. The cover
letter dated January, but the year seems to be an
error since the address ee, Betsy Wright, is identified as
working for the Transition Team Clinton Transition Team. In it,
(16:55):
Weddington tells Betsy Wright of the four page missive to
the President to be that follows that I am going
to try to get it published. Uh. Would you like
to hear some excerpts from this letter that Ron Weddington,
co council on Roll versus Wade wrote to then President
elect Bill Clinton. You want to hear it? These are excerpts.
(17:19):
I don't think you're gonna go very far in reforming
the country until we have a better educated and healthier
and wealthier population. You can start immediately to eliminate the
barely educated, the 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.
(17:39):
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 towards a small
try surrounded by enemies. We are long past that our
(18:04):
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 later. We don't need more
poor babies. This appeared at the Opinion Journal dot com
on March or May the twelfth, I'm sorry of this year.
(18:24):
It was written to then President elect Clinton uh sometime
in to Betsy Wright from the co Council of the
ro VERSUS Wait now what's he advocating here. He's advocating
abortion and having a litmus test on who shouldn't who
shouldn't have kids. And I'm not talking. I'm not indicting
Clinton here. Don't misunderstand. I'm just saying this is somebody
(18:45):
thought he was on Clinton's side. This is a co
counsel in ro versus way, 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 at a lack of replacement level
liberals out there because of a lack of liberal births
and the abortion is not a factor in it, You've
got to have your head examined. It is the foremost
(19:08):
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'm gonna get into all this stuff unless there's
back up for it.
Rush Limbaugh - Timeless Wisdom News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.