The Baby Gap: Explaining Red and Blue, by Steve Sailer in The American Conservative
(Hat Tip: Right Mind.) Here it is, folks: conservatives are having more babies than are liberals. The implications are unmistakable and un-missable, and for the liberals, they are worse than the earlier stories about "missing voters," which I quoted here.
The thesis about the "missing voters" was, of course, that the Democrats aborted away six million more potential voters than Republicans did--and when you recognize that George W. Bush won the popular vote by less than that many votes, that alone ought to have Democrats kicking themselves. But Steve Sailer points out a worse problem: not only are the Democrats aborting their voters; they're not conceiving them, either. Sailer's linear-regression plot is clear and convincing (and I ought to know; this is Statistics 101 in medical school and in pre-med undergrad lab courses). It clearly shows that white women, not of Hispanic origin, who are more fertile tend to vote Republican in larger numbers than do white women who prefer not to have babies.
Folks, it's all a matter of values. If you value life, liberty, and family, you will vote for the party that has sworn to protect all three, and you will not vote for the party that threatens all three. Is this really rocket science? But worse than that, for the liberals, is that the conservatives are the ones making all the babies.
Well, now we know why the liberals make such a point of teaching "sensitivity" in our nation's schools! Here are some revealing figures. Besides: go into any public school in the country, and you will likely see a picture of two women posing in a manner suggesting that they have a homosexual relationship, and a caption that says that somehow they feel that their rights are threatened. Now for the record, I don't propose throwing people in jail just for being a little too sweet on their same-sex roommates. But I reserve the right to choose my roommates by any standard I wish--or I would, except that I'm happily married, and the roommate issue is moot for me. In any event, that's not the issue. The issue is that liberals know that their only hope of winning elections in the next generation is to fight--directly--against the value systems of the parents. Steve Sailer proves what they must surely have long suspected: that liberalism and parenthood don't mix! Are they alarmed? Of course they are--my confidence is 95% on that. And they'd be fools not to be. (Well, I think they're fools anyway, but they're not that foolish.)
So what does this mean for you and me? Simple: stay away from the government schools. Sure, it means paying twice for education--once for those of your own kids, and once again for your neighbor's kids who are still in that government school. But maybe your kids will have the chance to vote on a referendum to abolish that government school. More to the point, on the education of your own children, you cannot compromise. The liberals now in control of most government schools have motive, opportunity, and means to turn your children against you. Don't even give them that chance.
The thesis about the "missing voters" was, of course, that the Democrats aborted away six million more potential voters than Republicans did--and when you recognize that George W. Bush won the popular vote by less than that many votes, that alone ought to have Democrats kicking themselves. But Steve Sailer points out a worse problem: not only are the Democrats aborting their voters; they're not conceiving them, either. Sailer's linear-regression plot is clear and convincing (and I ought to know; this is Statistics 101 in medical school and in pre-med undergrad lab courses). It clearly shows that white women, not of Hispanic origin, who are more fertile tend to vote Republican in larger numbers than do white women who prefer not to have babies.
Folks, it's all a matter of values. If you value life, liberty, and family, you will vote for the party that has sworn to protect all three, and you will not vote for the party that threatens all three. Is this really rocket science? But worse than that, for the liberals, is that the conservatives are the ones making all the babies.
Well, now we know why the liberals make such a point of teaching "sensitivity" in our nation's schools! Here are some revealing figures. Besides: go into any public school in the country, and you will likely see a picture of two women posing in a manner suggesting that they have a homosexual relationship, and a caption that says that somehow they feel that their rights are threatened. Now for the record, I don't propose throwing people in jail just for being a little too sweet on their same-sex roommates. But I reserve the right to choose my roommates by any standard I wish--or I would, except that I'm happily married, and the roommate issue is moot for me. In any event, that's not the issue. The issue is that liberals know that their only hope of winning elections in the next generation is to fight--directly--against the value systems of the parents. Steve Sailer proves what they must surely have long suspected: that liberalism and parenthood don't mix! Are they alarmed? Of course they are--my confidence is 95% on that. And they'd be fools not to be. (Well, I think they're fools anyway, but they're not that foolish.)
So what does this mean for you and me? Simple: stay away from the government schools. Sure, it means paying twice for education--once for those of your own kids, and once again for your neighbor's kids who are still in that government school. But maybe your kids will have the chance to vote on a referendum to abolish that government school. More to the point, on the education of your own children, you cannot compromise. The liberals now in control of most government schools have motive, opportunity, and means to turn your children against you. Don't even give them that chance.
posted by Temlakos at 2:14 PM
<< Home