Don Manzullo is 100% On Abortion

In a previous post I was discussing the tension between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism in social conservatives. So I of course I needed to see how my congressman Don Manzullo voted on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion and federal subsidies for insurance coverage of abortion. My Cong. Critter did good. He voted the NRLC way and thus helped to get anti-abortion Democrat votes for the Health Care Destruction bill which passed the House.

Way to go Don. And I used to like you. I might as well be voting for a Democrat or a Libertarian.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Meet Don Manzullo

The guys from the Rockford Tea Party are having a meet up with Illinois Congressman Don Manzullo from 9 to 10:30 a.m. Saturday Aug 8th at the DeKalb County Farm Bureau, 1350 W. Prarie Drive, Sycamore, Illinois and from Noon to 1:30 p.m. Saturday, Aug, 8 at the Ogle County Farm Bureau, 421 W. Pines, Oregon, Illinois.

BTW Oregon is about 1/2 way between Rockford, Illinois and Dixon Illinois. And if you go a little farther you get to Tampico, Illinois the birthplace of Ronald, Reagan.

The Rockford Register Star had a bit on the local Tea Party People. From June 22nd 2009.

A man who walked from his Rockford home to Washington, D.C., will speak to the Rockford Tea Party at the group’s meeting Thursday night.

The Rockford Tea Party, a group that’s part of a national movement that aims to hold government accountable, originally was supposed to meet at the First Free Evangelical Church on Mulford Road. But after church administrators heard radio ads inviting the public to the meeting, they informed the group they could not use the church as a meeting space.

The group now will meet at the Highland School building on East State Street.

Kurt Kallenbach walked from Rockford to Washington, D.C., with the hopes of educating others about the government’s missteps.

“It was a philosophical walk, not a political walk,” Kallenbach, 48, said. “It gave me a chance to meet people across the country and get the opportunity to speak.”

Kallenbach said church administrators canceled the Rockford Tea Party’s meeting within an hour of his interview on radio station WNTA 1330 AM on Tuesday.

“The church kicked us out,” said David Hale, director of the Rockford Tea Party. He said he received “an angry phone call” from an employee of the church who told him the Rockford Tea Party’s values are not the values of the church.

The Tea Party People promise to also meet with Rep. Mark Kirk at a later date.

I have had a few words to say about Rep. Kirk here:

Mark Kirk Is No Traitor

Upsetting The Political Apple Cart

Brain Dead Republican Enhances Party Image

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Bailing On The Bailout

My Congressman Don Manzullo had this to say:

“Everything we’re doing to reach out to members is predicated on the fact that failure is not an option,” said Blunt spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier.

But not all of those efforts were fruitful. Blunt’s visit to the meeting of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) was met with criticism that leadership was asking them to vote for a bill that members now considered “impure” because of alleged pork projects.

Two sources said that Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) raised his voice to Blunt at the RSC meeting, telling him, “We elect you to represent us, and you aren’t doing it.”

Tell it like it is Don.

This turkey will not pass.

Without a clean bill it will not get enough Republican votes. Without a dirty bill it will not get enough Democrat votes. Do the math.

Update: It passed. So much for my powers of prediction.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Congressman Manzullo Against Cut And Run

My Congressman, Don Manzullo-R, Illinois 16th Dist, sent me this letter about his vote against cut and run. I'm reprinting it in whole:

===

Floor Remarks on Iraq Resolution

Congressman Don Manzullo

February 13, 2007

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India, Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and Iraq.

Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other Members of Congress.

The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000 more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq.

The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline, ``Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates,'' repeats the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: ``If these operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S. footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing.''

Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus, stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this resolution.

We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.