Clarity! That is what the Democrats are planning today in their vote on Obamacare. Those who believe in the Constitution will vote no. Those that do not believe in the Constitution of the United States will vote in favor. It is as simple as that.

The bill they are voting on is unconstitutional on so many levels that I cannot possibly do them justice in a short column. Also, I am not a good enough Constitutional scholar to adequately discuss the various issues involved in each individual clause. All I can go on are the words of the Constitution itself. I believe that the Founding Fathers put those words in exactly that order so that there would be clarity for all time. That we are having problems with the words is a symptom of a greater problem in our culture. We need to get back to look at what the words meant in 1781 and then make provisions for our greater technology. That does not mean change the meaning of the word. It just means that if it talks about freedom of the press, it means the electronic press as well as the print press. That kind of accommodation is perfectly acceptable. It does not change the meaning of the words, just allows that if they wrote it today they would have allowed for our greater technology.

That being said, I do not think that the “Commerce Clause” that the Democrats hang their hat on is something that was intended to be a major force in the Constitution. It is in the preamble to the section it is included in. If they intended it to be one of the main guiding principles, they would have included it in the body of the document, not the preamble. I believe that any law passed that uses the “Commerce Clause” as its basis is not necessarily unconstitutional, but most likely outside of the constitution. That, in effect, nullifies almost all of the Democrat introduced laws since 1932. They grabbed onto the “Commerce Clause” and are trying to run a truck through the hole.

Steny Hoyer is now trying to say that the “Commerce Clause” allows the government to require you to purchase health insurance. That is just nonsense. If the government can require you to purchase health insurance, what else will they require you to purchase. At that point, they can run your entire life. They can make you buy a car, a home and anything else they want. You would be required to purchase it because of the “General Welfare” part of the “Commerce Clause”. If you are still reading you can see how idiotic this position that Steny Hoyer is taking. But, he has to take that position in order to justify the passage of the Obamacare legislation.

The vote today will weed out the wheat from the chaff. The wheat will vote to kill the unconstitutional bill. The chaff will vote to pass the bill. Anyone who votes to pass the bill should be barred from holding public office again until they can pass a class in Constitutional Law taught by a “real” Constitutional lawyer like Hugh Hewitt or Neal Boortz. I am sure that there are plenty of real Constitutional lawyers in this country. We have an artificial Constitutional lawyer in the White House. He has no clue about the Constitution. I am not a Constitutional lawyer and I know more about the Constitution than our current occupant of the White House does.

Watch how your member of the House votes on the Obamacare legislation today. If he/she votes for the bill, never vote for that person again. If that person votes to kill the bill, the legislator is worthy of further votes in the future. You would have to evaluate them on other criteria to determine if they should be retained, but on the Constitution, they get a passing grade.

The liberals are always talking about free speech. They constantly say that they believe in the importance of all views being heard in the debate. They even came up with a slogan during the Bush years, “dissention is patriotic”. Now their views on free speech are being tested and they don’t like it very much.

What liberals mean by free speech is that all liberal views should be heard. No conservative should ever dare question any liberal position on anything. When liberals say that dissention is patriotic, they mean that dissention is patriotic when it is a liberal protesting against a conservative. That is the natural order of things, so of course it is patriotic. When a conservative questions a liberal the natural order of things has been upset and so it is not patrioti

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer signed a statement the other day that basically said that there is no free speech for conservatives. Now, I am reading between the lines and making conclusions from their arguments, but I think that most liberals would agree with that assessment. If they were two people off of the street, it would be a dangerous document. But, because they are the top two Democrats in the House of Representatives it is radioactive in its impact. The White House and Barack Obama seem to agree with that sentiment as they continually talk about being attacked by right wingers.

Democrats from the House and Senate on recess are cancelling Townhall meetings at a record pace. They are being confronted at every event and always come off looking like the fools they are. I saw a You-Tube video of a man with a handicapped child in Michigan who confronted his Congressman. He was removed from the room for his efforts. There was a doctor in Atlanta, GA that was accused of being from outside the area and a Republican. Both charges were completely false. Democrats are hiding behind closed doors or accusing their constituents of being paid by the insurance companies. Their fear is showing. That is a good sign as it might tell them that this so-called healthcare bill is not something they want to support.

Hopefully Democrats are getting the message that people are upset. I know that around here people are upset enough to vote the person out of office in 2010, if they vote for the bill. To pass the bill, Nancy Pelosi needs almost all the Democrats to vote with her. She is unlikely to get any Republican votes. That makes the move a Democrat Albatross. If it is as bad as advertised, and it is most likely worse, Democrats will be on the outside of power rather quickly.

So far, the Democrat leadership has been completely tone deaf on this issue. They are determined to pass the bill, regardless of the lack of support. Some of their members have their ears to the ground and know that to vote for the bill is political suicide. The leadership will try to pay the members off with millions or even billions of our dollars to get them to agree to vote for this monster. That will just add a fiscal irresponsibility tag to the arrogant politician tag. Those tags will not fly very well in the 2010 and 2012 elections. People want fiscally responsible politicians in Washington and the Democrats have proven themselves unworthy of the public trust.

The Republicans have not taken the lead on the issue as of this date. They can take the lead, if they desire to. So far, all the Republican response has been fractured and disjointed. Of course, it has been filtered by the news media. An election cycle will take care of that problem. It is just that there is no unified voice of the party. That person needs to emerge, and quickly. Whoever takes the lead on this issue will be the next President in 2012. But, that window of opportunity is open only for a short time. If you don’t grab the bull by the horns now, it will take more work in 2012. Let’s hope that someone decides to get out in front and be willing to take the arrows. Arrows from Democrats may sound terrible, but are really nothing of consequence.

Yesterday, I heard some stirrings from Mitt Romney on the Hugh Hewitt show. The scenario is written as a perfect script for Romney. If he wrote up his dream scenario, this would be it. I am not sure why he has not jumped out in front and said here I am, follow me. If he says it now and provides real leadership, then the bigots will have no impact on his campaign.