Jun
2
Why Can’t Rush Limbaugh and John R. Lott Put Two and Two Together?
Filed Under The Curse of 1920, Women's rights movement
Cartoon: The Temptation, Life Magazine, 1911
Read more about the cartoon
Recently, Rush Limbaugh read on his radio program much of John R. Lott’s article titled, “Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise.†Before he did so, I called in to his program to express my comments about this, as Rush had announced the day before that he would address it. On two occasions, I have sent Rush copies of my book, The Curse of 1920: The Degradation of Our Nation in the Last 100 Years, along with personal letters, with no response. The response from Snerdley, the call screener, was similar. “I think I will pass on this one,†was his reply when I told him what I wanted to talk about.
Now, I know he receives many calls, and has to decide where the show format will go. This is his right and responsibility. However, I find that there is an aversion on the part of people like Rush, Sean Hannity, and others to be entirely realistic as to what the sole solution is to this cancerous problem of feminism that leads not only to our political struggles, but to our political suicide. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats and their destructive feminized policies, yet they refuse to be honest with reality.
In Lott’s recent article, he aptly noted that the growth of government and taxes have been directly due to women’s suffrage. And as obvious as it should be to both of these men, and to anyone, the only solution to this problem is therefore to repeal those rights—cause and effect.
Republicans like Limbaugh and Hannity bemoan moderates, or the like, who compromise “Conservative values,†when they are in fact the pot calling the kettle black. They fail to realize that because they themselves fail to pursue the only solution, even their conservatism cannot and will not solve these grave issues. Why can’t they put two and two together and realize that if women’s suffrage created the burgeoning problems related to excessive and overreaching government, then the only solution is to remove women’s suffrage?
Republicans want to row their boat with its own variety of political correctness and its gaping hole of women’s suffrage and women’s rights, and do nothing more than to say that they have a better plan on how to bail water. I have a better idea. Duh … stop the breach!
I was recently the guest of another noted talk show host, Lars Larson. At least he was open to broaching this issue. When I told him about the only solution and mentioned that Ann Coulter has said the same thing, he noted that when his wife heard Ann’s comments, she said she would certainly give up her right to vote. Ah, feminism’s vulnerability!
In fact, when on these talk shows, the host is always surprised that most of the women who call in agree with me. Of course there are the cynical feminists, both female and male; but as I told Lars, this issue of repealing women’s suffrage is the most vulnerable front there is in stopping the failed and destructive results of women’s suffrage and feminism.
Before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment granting national women’s suffrage with the same consequences as its sister amendment, Prohibition, many women, for good reason, opposed it. In 1911, Josephine Dodge, the wife of a leading New York capitalist, formed the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, urging women to influence policy through their influence on men. Women’s involvement in politics, she insisted, would undermine their moral and spiritual role, as well as create chaos by meddling in matters that were better suited for men. It is now obvious she was right, her words echoing those of the man who wrote our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson: giving women the right to vote would lead to “depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue.â€
Before Mrs. Dodge, Mrs. Annie Wittenmyer, president of the world’s largest women’s organization of her day, warned that if women received the right to vote, it would “strike a fatal blow at the home.†With America’s present divorce rates at an astounding 53 percent (3 of 4 filed by women), traditional two-parent families declining over 30 percentage points to a mere 50 percent, marriage rates at half of what they were as recent as 1970, and out-of-wedlock births at 40 percent, ten times what they were in 1950, history now sadly proves that Mrs. Wittenmyer was equally right.
In the same year of 1911, Senator J. B. Sanford, Chairman of the Democratic Caucus of California, noted that a Sanford bill allowing women to decide first the fate of women’s suffrage was opposed by feminists. Why? Because they knew that women would vote down the amendment by a margin of ten to one. Women’s suffrage was a big-city issue, and women with traditional moral and family values opposed it.
If women today knew how feminism has been and remains to be the most destructive force in existence in its attack on the home, on our children, on education, on society, and on civil government and national security, they too would vote to overturn it, even as its destructive sister amendment, Prohibition, was overturned.
The math is simple, the Nineteenth Amendment must be repealed.