Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
So, I logged onto my news feed yesterday and saw this headline:
Pelosi: Hillary Struggling With White Men Because of ‘Guns, Gays and God’
Now, I’ll be perfectly honest and tell you right up front that I’ve never been a Nancy Pelosi fan. My first instinct, upon seeing her name as the first word of the headline was to blow off the whole article… but then came the second word… and quickly behind it came the ninth, tenth and twelfth words.
I was suddenly intrigued.
In a nutshell, here is what our former Speaker of the House (therefore more than a minor voice in the Democratic Party) said is the problem with some voters:
“… so many times, non-college educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose…Some of those people were never going to be voting Democratic anyway. But I believe that, with the turnout that we expect to have, we will draw some of them in…”
Now, I’m not the only one who was struck by Mrs. Pelosi’s comments. But, thus far, I am the only one who seemed to get her point.
Throughout the day, I’m seeing one pundit after another debate the validity of her claims:
“We Republicans are not all non-college educated…”
“There are more than just those three items at the top of our priority list…”
“Hillary has bigger issues on her plate than this…”
Yadda… yadda… yadda.
Let’s break down what she said to its core, regarding this sub-sub-sub voting group of non-college educated white males:
They historically vote against their own economic interests. In other words, these guys could be making more money, but instead choose to vote for people that guarantee them lower paychecks.
Why do they vote for these oppressors?
“…because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.”
“Three G’s” sounds nifty in a 20-second soundbite, but what are they, really?
The first one is guns. The Second Amendment says very clearly:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t say anything about under certain circumstances, or up to any limitations. It doesn’t list any categories of weaponry that can or cannot be allowed.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not a gun owner. I, like many other parents, can easily imagine my kids having a tragic accident with any firearm within their reach. But, the Second Amendment is very clear in my eyes.
And while we’re on the topic of the Constitution, let’s talk about the Second G: gays.
Now, based on the fact that gays are grouped with the other two “G’s”, I think it’s also very easy to assume that Nancy’s researchers have found that these non-college educated white males are also evangelical, church-going, Bible believing Christians. And by definition, these guys must hate gays, right?
Wrong.
By definition, these voters most likely do not hate gays. In fact, statistics show that they probably work, play softball, coach soccer teams, or live harmoniously in neighborhoods with members of the LGBT community.
These guys simply hold fast to the millennia-old conviction that doesn’t ignore the fact that homosexual relationships exist, they just don’t need to exist within the confines of marriage. Or, at the very least, just as things have been since the founding of our nation and according to the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, that each state should be able to define marriage according to the popular vote of its citizenry.
That’s not hate. That’s history. That’s Constitutional law. That’s democracy within the framework of our Democratic Republic.
And, just like the Second Amendment, if Nancy and her compatriots would like to change these rules that we’ve been playing by for the last 240 years, there is the Constitution’s Article Five right there in black and white waiting for them to enact.
All that’s necessary is that 66 Senators and 287 Representatives or the State Legislatures from at least 33 states unify around Nancy’s Amendment to either or both the right to bare arms or States’ rights.
It’s really that simple.
Finally, let’s talk about the third G: God.
As Nancy described it, “God being the woman’s right to choose.”
Now, to confine anyone’s devotion to God down to their view on the sanctity of life is the model of oversimplification. God’s desire for all of us – from the non-educated to the Washington elites – is to draw close to Him, love one another, and live out our love by obeying His commands. There’s no room in there for hatred, nor gun violence, nor abortion.
All this to say, I think I understand Nancy’s point better than the people in suits filling time on TV. Her premise is getting buried by everyone. Look at what she said to frame her “Three G’s” argument:
“It’s about the economy… They voted against their own economic interests…”
In other words…
If these guys would simply understand that they’d earn higher paychecks simply by abandoning their convictions regarding the Tenth Amendment, Second Amendment, God and His value of life… then they’d be smart enough to vote for Hillary.
WHAT?
I’m really not exaggerating when I put this type of assertion on the same level as…
“If you guys would shut up, forget the Constitution, and abandon the Word of God, then you’d have more money. Isn’t that what you really want?”
Then again, I do agree with Nancy 100% when she said:
“Some of those people were never going to be voting Democratic anyway.”
Yeah. Some. Just the ones who love our Constitution, love our nation, love our sons and daughters, and love our God.