Posted on 12/04/2004 6:03:48 AM PST by Uncledave
Recently I came upon research that pointed to a remarkable statistic regarding Black abortion rates. In the roughly 30 years since Roe, enough Black babies have been aborted so that had they lived, the number of Blacks in America would be 1/3 higher! Amazing! The rats are killing their own voters. If the kkk killed one one thousand of that number it would be the national scandal it deserves to be. rats are evil ain't they?
Likewise, liberals in blue areas such as Northern California pioneer environmental restrictions on development in part to keep out illegal immigrants and other poor minorities. Thinly populated Republican areas are pro-development because increasing density raises property values as once remote regions obtain roads, sewer hookups, cable television, local shopping, and nice restaurants. If poorly planned, however, overcrowding causes property values to lag, allowing poor people to move in.
Conservative Southern California, home to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, was traditionally more laissez faire than liberal Northern California, ultimately allowing itself to be inundated by poorly educated illegal aliens, wrecking the public schools. In contrast, environmentalist—and thus expensive—Northern California attracted a variety of skilled immigrants. Eventually, many Los Angeles Republicans either fled inland or decided that those San Francisco Democrats had the right idea all along.
That's worth thinking about. Sometimes areas develop such striking local problems that they feel they "have" to vote for a party that once seemed uncongenial to them. Even if they think their new choice doesn't have the right ideas with regard to economics or morals, they fear that their old party would ignore their own particular interests and "needs." People gravitate to the party whose leaders have the same background -- in this case White, urban or inner suburban, professional, non-evangelical -- as they do. And in some places, the Democrats look like the status quo, anti-growth, anti-change party to people, so they win votes even among those who don't share the more radical views of the party activists.
Now illegal immigrants are flocking to other pro-growth red states, such as North Carolina and Georgia, and may eventually turn those states Democratic due both to the Democratic-voting immigrants’ very high birthrates and to a California-style drift toward environmentalism among its white voters as laissez faire proves inadequate to keep out illegal aliens.
You can already see this in once solidly Republican and now marginal states like Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. When you get a large non-White, non-Black vote in some Southern states, it may have the effect of pushing some of those states into the swing category as well.
The article's a good read, but it failed to touch on the abortion-as-Dems-killing-their-own aspect.
Blacks account for 12% of the population and 30% of the abortion rate, they are literally killing off their race and next generation in America. Margaret Sanger's plan is slowly working where a planned parenthood is in most urban areas in the country and now are in the schools.
Even here the red parts of the state are growing(Livingston, Ottawa, Kent, Lapeer Counties) while most (Ann Arbor area and Southfield is the exception) blue areas are shrinking (Detroit, Most of Detroit's inner burbs outside Southfield, Flint, Lansing, East Lansing, Saginaw, Bay City, Muskegon)
They've aborted their voters of today.
Did the left think about that when abortion became legal...I'd say YES...However, what they had counted on was dumbing down kids to such a degree when they began to vote; those kids would be liberal loons voting for the bad guys. Guess the left had not considered the continued influence their parents would have on them...raising right leaning adults. ;o)
=== The reps can be glad for abortion and birth control. It just may put them in power for decades.
It's very likely that's one reason it was Republicans who found it critical to implement both birth control and legal abortion as part of their comprehensive population control program.
While Pubbies were busy filling the Congressional Record with fear of over-population and "Down Breeding" and suggesting alternatives for population control and "moral" depopulation to counter misguided "moral" attempts to lengthen lives, reduce infant morality and encourage breeding, Democrats still were agitating against abortion as "targeted genocide."
(This is one reason why NOW was able to protest his former "pro-lifer" voting record during Gore's anti-campaign in 2000.)
It's no wonder the Dems changed their tune practically overnight once Kissinger & Co. were positioned to make abortion "vital to the solution" of population control at home and abroad given how critical it was that the party of Dysgenics consider it the Litmus Test zenith of empowerment and "rights" to OFF THEIR OWN.
Abortion has always been a GOP policy. They were first to lay the foundation back in 1970, citing the "economic discrimination" whereby poor women were impaired from destroying the progeny they felt was contributing to the Down Breeding of American society.
All in the Congressional Record, tkathy. You oughta take a look sometime and see how right you are.
Abortion on demand: Social Darwinism at its finest. One full generation, and a part of a second, are now missing in those families whose culture was permissive about abortion.I realize it's the preference of most RedStaters to focus exclusively on the blood and guts of abortion.
However, it's their penchant for birth control -- a "right" which necessitates and lays the foundation foir abortion in the first place -- which suggests they'll lose in the end.
Look to Europe where the Meek who yet refuse to bar the Creator fromi the marriage bed are changing the face of formerly Christian nations.
Same will apply here.
Thanks for the ping! BTTT for later
BTTT
No, you're just the only one who interprets it this way.
Whatsa matter, can't take having someone reason their way to a logical conclusion?
If memory serves, they endorsed Kerry
Actually they endorsed no one. The final pre-election issue had four articles championing the four candidates of note: Bush, Kerry, Badnarik and Peroutka. Buchanan went for Bush.
then seems to turn into a xenophobic, race-obsessed doomsday prediction?
Oh, of course. Any discussion of caucasians in any context is always xenophobic, right, liberal? If he had said "it's disgraceful how ethnically homogeneous these places are! Where are the minorities?!" like a NYT writer, you'd be applauding approvingly.
So, how's them Rockefeller Readings going, Mr. Multi-Culturalist-UN man?
Aside from the author using 'child rearing' and 'San Francisco' in the same sentence, this is a great article.
I found the article fascinating but the anti-bush bias and (in the last few paragraphs, the xenophobic racism) was over the top. It did point out that blue cities tend to be that way because young singles go there to concentrate on their careers and live it up. When they have families they see the virtue of putting some distance between themselves and the throbbing streets. Author Sailer does point out the often overlooked phenomenon of neighborhoods, municipalities, regions, etc. wanting to pull up the drawbridge and keep the riffraff out (through zoning, "environmentalism," clamping down on roadbuilding, etc. I object to his blanket insinuations about "poor people." A great many "poor people" are youngsters starting out. As Mr. Jack Kemp (re: Empower America) would tell you, even "poor people" of whatever color tend not to despoil their own communities when they own their own homes, however humble. Dr. Theodore Dalrymple reminds us in his every article that the barbarism of the ghetto/barrio/trailer park is caused by the psychological debilitations of the welfare state. Thomas Sowell, when he gets going on about his youth, never hesitates to remind us that poor communities are not necessarily sinkholes of pathology.
The houses of my own neighborhood in Arlington, VA have become rental properties as the older residents die off. The newest phenomenon is that of old houses being bought and torn down with mini-Mcmansions being built on the lots for wealthy empty-nesters. But very few young families can afford to come here. The place has gotten very "young" as all the renters tend to be up-and-comers fresh out of college starting their careers in Beltway-land. If they settle and have kids they have to move farther out and subject themselves to the torment of commuting. The "beaners" live crammed like sardines in an area of comparatively old, cheap apartments.
Concerning abortion, I do belive in the "Roe Effect" but would like to point out some other hard to quantify factors. As others have noted, conservative families TEND to have more children and conservative (and religious) families TEND to stay together. What we need is to survey high-school valedictorians, SAT top scorers and Phi Beta Kappas and see just how many of them come from stable, two-parent (and coincidentally conservative) families. It's more than raw numbers, I am willing to bet this country's new generation of movers and shakers tend not to come from single moms, broken homes, "blended families" or any other kind of fashionable arrangement liberals profess to love.
And again, I venture to point out this where the Muslims have the advantage, being that in their self-segregated societies, women are not allowed to do anything BUT have kids. Then again, that points out the supreme logic of welfare reform in this country as (unlike Old Europe) we will no longer pay people to have kids on the taxpayer dime. Remember the most important thing about Abu Hamza, the notorious hook-handed, hate-spewing imam of London's infamous Finsbury Park Mosque was that he and his entire family turned out to be living it up on the dole.
Oh, The Horror. The Horror.
So, Big Guy. Criticise the argument. Where is he wrong?
Oh good! A new word, teutonic in its catenated construction. Maybe you, as the Authority on the Constitution, could define in what way Sailer has an aversion to the Constitution, and how such an attitude has paleolithic origins.
If you can't vote them out, breed them out...
Umm, where? Are you saying that merely talking about what illegal immigration has done to Los Angeles and Southern California is racist and xenophobic? Are you a PC cop, here to enforce nothing but good words for the millions who have violated the laws of the United States to get here?
Maybe you could explain yourself, and tell us all why you think illegal immigration is such a wonderful thing, and beyond criticism.
Hated to give you the wrong idea, if you're familiar with my other postings you would know I'm as against illegal immigration as any of you. It's just the obsessive nature of the author's writing that rubbed me the wrong way. I have my doubts that events in those regions have transpired the way they have for the reasons he espouses. The illegals follow the industries that hire them. But banishing illegals and keeping out "low-income" people and anti-development mania get conflated in the author's mind and I think he mixes it all together and puts a nasty gloss on it. It's the PC local governments and their "sanctuary" laws that allow the enemy to concentrate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.