Archive for 01/20/2010

Obama’s TSA pick withdraws

Posted: 01/20/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Major blow for White House under fire over handling of domestic terror threats

Posted: January 20, 2010
10:52 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Southers

Erroll Southers, President Obama’s pick to head the Transportation Security Administration, withdrew today, claiming his nomination had become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda.

The decision was a blow for a White House already under fire by critics for its handling of the attempted Christmas bombing of an American airline.

Southers’ nomination had been held up by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint who expressed concern Southers would attempt to unionize TSA security agents.

In an e-mail to friends and colleagues, Southers stated, “It is unfortunate that we are residing in such contentious political times, that exceptional, ‘apolitical’ candidates have to seriously consider their willingness to participate in public service.”

In Senate hearings, Southers had avoided giving a “yes” or “no” answer over whether he would unionize airport security workers. Unions across the U.S., however, have been lobbying hard for Southers’ confirmation.

Critics charge unionizing airport security would impose rules on union workers that could impede national security efforts in combating terrorist threats.

Columnist Michelle Malkin, who had written about the issues surrounding Southers, said, “The withdrawal spotlights the Obama administration’s reckless evasions of public information requests about its nominees – and its embrace of radical nominees who show contempt for the rule of law. The Southers debacle, like the USAO nominee Stephanie Villafuerte debacle, the green jobs czar Van Jones debacle, and the Charles Freeman debacle, shows that neither the White House nor the vast majority of mainstream media outlets care about vetting at all.”

DeMint, R-S.C., said it was a case of administration officials just refusing to provide the information that was needed about a candidate.

“And Mr. Southers was never forthcoming about his intentions to give union bosses veto power over security decisions at our airports. TSA screeners can already join unions, but collective bargaining would force TSA officials to ask union bosses for permission to make critical security changes. The Senate could have had an open and transparent debate this week to approve Mr. Southers, but apparently, answering simple, direct questions about security and integrity were too much for this nominee,” he said.

WND first reported Southers had boasted to a major union that he looked forward to “joining” with them to add value to TSA security.

Get the book that tells you what terrorists complain about, besides paying the rent

The website of the American Federation of Government Employees, District 3, Local 332, which is part of AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S., is boasting of an e-mail from Southers on August 7, just after his nomination was announced.

In the e-mail, Southers told the union, “I look forward to joining you and adding value to the homeland security mission at TSA.”

“This says a lot about this man who will lead the TSA,” states the AFL-CIO website.

Southers’ e-mail is also re-posted on the website of AFL-CIO District 2 Local 2617.

Separately, WND also reported on Southers’ suggestion terrorists have attacked the U.S. because of the country’s alliances with Israel and France.

In a 2008 video interview with the VideoJug website, Southers was asked, “How high should the war on terror be on our list of national priorities?”

He replied: “It should be high on our list of priorities because of – speaking globally – the threat that exists. Due to connectivity that we have with countries such as Israel, France, countries that are seen by groups – by al-Qaida as being infidels or anti-Islamic, by the true nature of our alliance with them means that we are subject to being attacked as well.”

Scores of terrorist leaders, including senior jihadists interviewed by WND, explained attacks against the U.S. are primarily carried out to spread Islam around the world. While al-Qaida has listed U.S. support for Israel among its grievances, the global terrorist network gives more prominence to its gripe that foreign troops are deployed in Islamic countries.

Despite a growing domestic Islamic threat, Southers during the interview stressed that white supremacists and anti-abortion groups are the greatest domestic terrorist danger.

Southers currently is assistant chief in charge of security and intelligence at the Los Angeles airport’s police department.

The White House said today Obama had accepted Southers’ withdrawal with great sadness and continued to believe Southers would have made an excellent TSA administrator.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Posted: 01/20/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.  I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.  The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated  If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government.  The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with!  I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital.  All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.  You can also forget about the right to privacy.  That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you.  It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law  It doesn’t stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea.  This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.  Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation.  If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp



AFTER HAVING READ THIS,  PLEASE FORWARD….

WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.


In an attempt to degrade the 2nd Amendment in this country the Obama Administration has shut down the oldest gun show in the state of Texas.

From Infowars:

In a disturbing update to a story covered in-depth today on the Alex Jones Show, Texas grocery retailer HEB has banned Texas Gun Shows from holding a monthly gun show. HEB is the lease holder on the property where the gun show was held.

Congressional Democrats and their Constitution-hating allies have proposed two bills in an attempt to shut down gun shows. The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 (H.R. 2324) was introduced in the House by the notorious gun-grabber Carolyn McCarthy of New York. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced similar legislation, the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 (S. 843), in the U.S. Senate. As of October 2009, the House version of the bill had 35 co-sponsors (mostly Democrats) and the Senate version had 15 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

This is just the first step in an attempt to take away the American peoples guns. The government fears the fact that ordinary citizens have the capability to defend themselves against invaders to their houses and government tyranny.

It is time to stand up for our Constitution and protect the precious rights we still have and that includes the 2nd Amendment.

Is Scott Brown just a sugarcoated Obamanation?

Posted: 01/20/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Loyal to Liberty

Monday, January 18, 2010

Alan Keyes

Tomorrow registered voters in Massachusetts have the opportunity to go to the polls to vote in the special election being held to decide who should replaced recently deceased Senator Edward Kennedy in the United States Senate.  Some polls indicate that Scott Brown, the Republican nominee now has a slight edge over the Democrat Martha Coakley.   I know that people who visit this blog on a regular basis are likely to be deeply concerned about the surrender of liberty that is now far advanced in the U.S.  Some will surely be tempted to join the Hallelujah chorus GOP choir director Michael Steele will surely orchestrate should Brown win the vote.  Before they do, I hope they will consider the following information posted on Brown’s campaign site regarding his stand on issues that are critical to the restoration of America’s liberty in principle and in fact:

  • Abortion
    While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
  • Education
    I am passionate about improving the quality of our public schools. Accountability and high standards are paramount. I support choice through charter schools, as well as the MCAS exam as a graduation requirement. I have worked to ensure that all children have access to a quality education. I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower income students with broader educational opportunities.
  • Marriage
    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

This information supports the conclusion that Scott Brown is not pro-life.  Though he pays lip service to choice in education, he gives priority to “accountability and high standards”, buzzwords for an approach that leaves control of education in the hands of government, rather than where it belongs, in the hands of those who exercise parental responsibility.  His professed beliefs about marriage ring hollow against the backdrop of actual events in Massachusetts, where he has said “the issue is settled… and he respects the decision to allow gay marriages.”

The imposition of gay marriage in Massachusetts was not based on “the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their representatives.”  It was the result of a judicial opinion thereafter imposed by the fiat order of then Massachusetts Governor Romney.  In doing so Romney ignored the fact, clearly noted in the opinion itself, that it had no force of law unless and until the legislature chose to enact it.

On his site Brown also says that he is “opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in the Congress and will vote against it.”  Yet in almost the same breath he says that “in Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law.”  Now the 2006 legislation signed into law by then Governor Romney included a provision that required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health issuance, and provided for government funding of abortions (state funded $50 co-pay abortions for those who qualified.)  In both respects, therefore, Scott Brown supports in substance two aspects of Obama’s health care proposal that have been most troubling to conservatives.  One casts aside the principle that limits government’s power to dictate the economic decisions of the individual.  The other uses government power to implicate all individuals in a practice that for many violates a paramount rule of conscience while overturning the doctrine of unalienable rights that is the basis for republican government (i.e., limited government based upon the consent of the governed.)

As far as I can tell from his campaign site, I agree with Scott Brown on a majority of other issues of major concern to the country.  If I subscribed to Michael Steele’s absurd “80-20” approach to voting, I would heartily encourage Massachusetts voters to support him.  Readers of this blog know that I do not agree with Steele.  It makes no sense to trust one’s health to a doctor who rightly prescribes remedies 90% of the time, when the remaining 10% includes inevitably fatal drugs or procedures.  Brown errs on key issues that involve just such fatally flawed positions.  Of course the victims of his errors include not just individuals, but the soul and liberty of the nation.

Scott Brown’s candidacy typifies the fatal flaw the Republican Party label now represents.  Though in fact opposed to Obama on the details of some policies, on issues essential to the survival of liberty he actually embraces the fatally flawed departure from moral and political principle that clears the way for those who wish to destroy the moral and institutional foundations of constitutional government.  The label promises remedies, but the bottle contains a few sugarcoated poison pills in key areas.

Some people have suggested to me that Joseph Lewis Kennedy (not part of the Kennedy clan, a libertarian running as an independent) offers a better alternative.  Because of his name he may be siphon support from the Democrat among ignorant voters who think they’re supporting one of their clan idols.  But this Kennedy appears to embrace the brand of libertarianism that, by failing to defend the moral foundations of liberty, promotes self-destructive licentiousness instead.

I have pondered and written extensively on the “lesser of evils” arguments that supposedly justify supporting candidates like Scott Brown.   I invite readers to consider my response.  Start with the essay In Good Conscience that I wrote in the context of the 2008 election.  The essays I have written about Michael Steele’s flawed approach further develop and apply my thinking.  To find them, just use the search box in the upper left hand corner at the very top of this page to run a search on ‘Michael Steele’.

If there were a real conservative in the race in Massachusetts people in the “lesser of evil’ crowd would say he or she had no chance of winning.  Of course, as long as we allow their arguments to prevent moral conservatives from uniting beyond what they truly believe, the spoiler effect of the Republican Party means that we will never know.  The “lesser evil” drives out the greater good, leaving us with no choice but evil in some guise.  I suspect that the conservative plurality would win in really contested three way races, even in a State like Massachusetts.

I know many voters who profess Christian faith who would rejoice to see that outcome.  They would thank God for the miracle.  The sad fact though is that their own lack of courage and conviction prevents it from happening.  Faith can move mountains, but only after those who profess faith allow it to move their own hearts.  I pray that the Massachusetts situation isn’t a harbinger of the 2010 elections, for that would mean a strong showing by the GOP that left us with a bunch of national legislators who don’t disagree with Obama about the immoral, liberty killing, socialist cliff we’re driving over.  They just think we ought to use a different vehicle and drive toward the deadly drop at a slower speed.  Unfortunately, in what now is the ever shorter run, that leaves constitutional liberty just as dead and gone.

GOP’s Brown wins in Mass

Posted: 01/20/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Christian

ONENEWSNOW

Associated Press – 1/19/2010 8:40:00 PM

Associated Press smallState Sen. Scott Brown (Massachusetts)BOSTON –  In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Coakley for the seat that the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy held for nearly half a century signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

More immediately, Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president’s health care legislation and the rest of Obama’s agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

Democratic fingerpointing began more than a week ago as polls started showing a tight race, with the White House accusing Coakley of a poor campaign and the Coakley camp laying at some of the blame on the administration. Obama flew to Boston for last-ditch personal campaigning on Sunday.

With 87 percent of precincts counted, Brown led Coakley, 52 percent to 47 percent.

The election transformed reliably Democratic Massachusetts into a battleground state. One day shy of the first anniversary of Obama’s swearing-in, it played out amid a backdrop of animosity and resentment from voters over persistently high unemployment, industry bailouts, exploding federal budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care.

For weeks considered a long shot, Brown seized on such discontent to overtake Coakley in the final stretch of the campaign. Surveys showed his candidacy energized Republicans, including backers of the grass-roots “tea party” movement, while attracting disappointed Democrats and independents uneasy with where they felt the nation was heading.

Turnout was relatively heavy for a special election despite a mix of snow and rain showers across the state virtually all day.

Though he wasn’t on the ballot, the president was on many voters’ minds.

“I voted for Obama because I wanted change. … I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading,” said John Triolo, 38, a registered independent who voted in Fitchburg.

He said his frustrations, including what he considered the too-quick pace of health care legislation, led him to vote for Brown.

But Robert Hickman, 55, of New Bedford, said he backed Coakley “to stay on the same page with the president.”

Even before the first results were announced, administration officials were privately accusing Coakley of a poorly run campaign and playing down the notion that Obama or a toxic political landscape had much to do with the outcome.

Coakley’s supporters, in turn, blamed that very environment, saying her lead dropped significantly after the Senate passed health care reform shortly before Christmas and after the Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing that Obama himself said showed a failure of his administration.

While votes were still being cast, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president “was both surprised and frustrated … not pleased” at how competitive the race had become in the final weeks.

Wall Street watched the election closely. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 116 points, and analysts attributed the increase to hopes the election would make it harder for Obama to make his changes to health care. That eased investor concerns that profits at companies such as insurers and drug makers would suffer.

Across Massachusetts, voters who had been bombarded with phone calls and dizzied with nonstop campaign commercials for Coakley and Brown gave a fitting turnout despite intermittent snow and rain statewide.

Forecast: Debt to dwarf GDP Thanks Longknife

Posted: 01/20/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

Former budget office chiefs say ‘something has to give’


Posted: January 18, 2010
10:14 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


President Obama

A blue-ribbon panel that includes three former heads of the Congressional Budget Office is telling President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress that the federal deficit must be cut now or the national debt within about two generations will be 600 percent of the gross domestic product.

“The debt level of the United States is unsustainable, something has to give,” said Rudolph Penner, former head of the CBO and co-chairman of a report issued last week by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration.

The report concludes federal deficit spending is so out of control that unless  Obama and Democrat leaders on the Hill make changes now, debt in 2080 will be six times what the nation produces.

The alarm is being sounded just as the Obama administration is preparing to push his nationalized health care plan through Congress. It comes from a bipartisan group of top economic policy experts, including three former heads of the CBO, who warned existing entitlement programs including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security already are creating a fiscal crisis for the nation without the addition of government-funded universal health care.

“The fundamental problem is that we have these three very large programs – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – that … are growing faster than tax revenues and faster than the economy,” Penner told WND.

Look into the nation’s financial future! Get Jerome Corsi’s best-selling “AMERICA FOR SALE: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty.”

The result is “an unsustainable federal budget deficit” that Penner described as “ever onward and upward.”

With the recession and the huge stimulus package added to the beginning of the baby boomers retiring, United States debt is already at 50 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP, and is projected to grow to 80 percent of GDP by 2019, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates of the Obama administration budget plans as they currently stand.

Studying the growth in three major entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – the report, “Choosing the Nation’s Fiscal Future,” said spending was far outpacing tax revenue such that “any efforts to rein in future deficits must entail either large increases in taxes to support these programs or major restraints on their growth – or some combination of the two.”

Unless action is taken immediately, the study warned, the U.S. “faces the risk of a disruptive fiscal crisis.”

In an alarming chart, the study projected that federal debt would be more than seven times the nation’s GDP in 75 years if no action is taken to constrain or offset the growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and if tax rates stay near their current level.

The report predicted a frightening fiscal future for the U.S. should the Obama administration and Congress fail to act.

“If remedial action is postponed for even a few years, a large and increasing federal debt will inevitably limit the nation’s future wealth by reducing the growth of capital stock and of the economy,” the panel advised. “It will also increase the nation’s liabilities to investors abroad, who currently hold about one-half of the federal government’s debt.”

Increasing debt to GDP levels also causes problems with increased interest payments for U.S. taxpayers in the future who will be obligated to pay ever-rising costs just to finance current budget deficits.

“Increasing debt also may contribute to a loss of international and domestic investor confidence in the nation’s economy, which would, in turn, lead to even higher interest rates, lower domestic investment, and a falling dollar.”

The panel suggested four different solutions, varying the mix of entitlement program spending and tax increases in the policy alternatives:

  1. Low Spending and Revenue. Tax revenues are held near their recent average level of 18 to 19 percent of GDP, and entitlement spending is constrained to 2 to 3 percentage points higher than revenues.

    “This path would require sharp reductions in projected growth rates for health and retirement programs

    , as well as reductions in the proportion of the economy’s resources available for all other federal responsibilities.”

  2. High Spending and Revenue. Taxes and entitlement spending are increased substantially, with spending eventually reaching one-third of GDP.

    “Because this spending level is still less than under a continuation of current policies, it would require an eventual reduction in the rate of growth of health spending. It would, however, accommodate the spending needed to maintain currently scheduled Social Security benefits.”

  3. Intermediate Path No. 1. Tax revenues and spending rise gradually to about one-fourth of GDP and spending on the elderly population would be constrained to support only modest expansion of other federal spending.

    “The growth rates for Social Security Medicare, and Medicaid would be slower than under current policies. This path reflects the view that the government should make selective new public investments to promote economic growth, preserve the environment, and build for the future.”

  4. Intermediate Path No. 2 Tax revenues and spending would eventually rise to a little more than one-fourth of GDP.

    “Spending for health and retirement benefits for the elderly population would be slowed but less constrained than in the Intermediate-1 path. This reflects the view that the government’s implicit promises for the elderly are a higher priority than other spending.”

All four budget alternatives were constructed with a view to keeping U.S. debt on what the panel considered a sustainable ratio of 60 percent U.S. debt to GDP.

The problem with implementing any of the budget alternatives is that the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress have demonstrated a propensity to increase entitlement programs dramatically, without producing a politically acceptable means of increasing taxes to pay for the programs.

Consistently, the Obama administration has resorted to a form of class warfare, threatening to “tax the rich” to pay for expanded social welfare programs, including the Democrat health plan.

Programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are entitlement programs by nature and have automatic expansion built into them, especially as the baby-boomers retire, Penner noted, in contrast to government-funded health programs in Britain and Canada that operate on fixed budgets and ration health care.

“To restrain these programs, they have to be very significantly restructured. Health programs are especially difficult because they are impacted both by the aging of the population and the inexorable rise in per capita health costs,” Penner said.

Penner was also concerned that the political resolve to increase taxes was much less firm than the urge to increase entitlement programs to a level beyond the ability of the federal government to finance the programs with ever-increasing levels of debt spending.

Penner also admitted the tax revenue assumptions of the report were optimistic.

“Our revenue assumptions are extremely optimistic as they stand,” he agreed. “We use the CBO baseline, which has us going on current policy and has the deficit ever-increasing. CBO assumes, quite unrealistically, that foreigners are going to provide all the savings we need at a constant interest rate. That’s how CBO keeps the economy growing in the face of extraordinarily large deficits.”

Higher interest rates needed to attract U.S. savings into Treasury debt financing could deprive the private economy of the capital needed to generate economic growth.

Penner is a fellow at the Urban Institute. He was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1983 to 1987. From 1977 to 1983, he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Michelle Malkin

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 19, 2010 09:40 AM

Scroll for updates…

Sorry, I couldn’t word it any more politely than that. But the very prospect of GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio bailing on his party to cast a swan song 60th vote for the government health care takeover bill makes me want to spit nails.

Voinovich is meeting with President Obama at 11:30am Eastern today in the Oval Office.

Nate Nelson at the Rust Belt blog notes that since Voinovich has already announced his retirement, he has nothing to lose. He’s infamous for turning into a blubbering mass on the Senate floor — while crusading for the illegal alien amnesty and voting against U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, for example. Remember this infamy?

In a recent piece on the Demcare bill, Voinovich says he’s worried about America’s exploding debt. But he led the drive for the massive auto bailout.

Will Voinovich sell out his constituents (and the country) for the legacy impulse?

He needs to hear from you. Here’s Nate Nelson’s message:

Dear Sen. Voinovich, I just wanted to call and let you know that I don’t think fifteen Ohio University College Republicans drove all the way to Massachusetts over the weekend to fight to elect Scott Brown the 41st vote against ObamaCare just to see their Republican senator become the 60th vote for ObamaCare. K thanks bye.

Washington, D.C. Office:
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Main: (202) 224-3353

Cleveland, OH Office:
1240 East 9th Street
Room 3061
Cleveland, OH 44199
Main: (216) 522-7095
Fax: (216) 522-7097

Southeast, OH Office:
78 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 57
Nelsonville, OH 45764
Main: (740) 441-6410
Fax: (740) 753-3551

Cincinnati, OH Office:
36 East 7th Street
Room 2615
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Main: (513) 684-3265
Fax: (513) 684-3269

Northeast, OH Office:
1240 East 9th Street
Room 3061
Cleveland, OH 44199
Main: (216) 522-7095
Fax: (216) 522-7097

Toledo, OH Office:
420 Madison Avenue
Room 1210
Toledo, OH 43604
Main: (419) 259-3895
Fax: (419) 259-3899

Dayton, OH Office:
(Based out of Cincinnati)
36 East 7th Street, Room 2615
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Main: (513) 684-3265
Fax: (513) 684-3269

Central, OH Office:
37 West Broad Street
Room 310
Columbus, OH 43215
Main: (614) 469-6697
Fax: (614) 469-7733

***

Update: Readers who have reached Voinovich’s staff says he remains opposed to the health care bill. Philip Klein sends along Voinovich’s statement from last month opposing Demcare.

We’ll see what he says after the 11:30am meeting in the Oval Office.

In any case, it never hurts to make a reinforcing phone call.

Klein thinks the meeting will be about the national debt.

Confirmed, via The Hill:

Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) will talk deficits and debt when he meets with President Barack Obama on Tuesday.

The retiring Ohio senator will meet with the president in the Oval Office this morning, which sparked some concern from conservatives that the senator, who’s previously broken with his party on some issues, might be subject to entreaties on healthcare.

“Senator Voinovich’s statement after his last vote against the partisan health care reform bill speaks for itself and his stance has not changed,” Voinovich spokesman Garrette Silverman said.

The meeting, rather, will include discussions of the rising national debt and the long-term fiscal course of the country.

Perfect: The Republican who spearheaded the auto bailout will “solve” the debt explosion with the Democrat spender-in-chief.

God save us from bipartisanship.

***

Update: Voinovich says after his meeting today: “I am not a vote for the health care bill, period.”