Friday, August 6, 2010

The Pledge to Prevent the Convening of a Lame Duck Congress

The progressives in congress know that if they continue to pass un-Constitutional and un-popular legislation like Obamacare and the inaccurately named Financial Reform Act, that their losses in the upcoming November elections will be even greater than they already are trending to be.  That being the case, the Democratic leadership is planning to convene congress after the November elections so as to pass what remaining leftist agenda items they can prior to the new 112th congress, which will assuredly be more conservative, is sworn in during the month of January 2011. 

These progressives understand that this is their last chance to pass their unwanted agenda while they still have a majority in congress, and the peoples wishes be damned!  With that in mind, American Solutions, led by Newt Gingrich, has issued a pledge for congressional members to sign ahead of time saying that they will not convene with this lame duck congress if it is indeed called.  Perhaps if enough in congress sign this pledge so a quorum will not exist, then no further anti-American legislation will be passed under the cynical and subversive leadership of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi!  Following is Speaker Gingrich's letter:

The Left are planning to subvert the will of the American people. You have the power to stop them.

Leading Congressional Democrats are dead set on passing controversial and unpopular legislation in a special Lame Duck session of Congress after the November 2nd Election. It's the only way Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can succeed in advancing their unpopular agenda because they know they don't have the support of the American people. Some will say we're just trying to scare people, but look at what they're saying:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "We're going to have to have a lame duck session, so we're not giving up."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): 'A lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session, too."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "I have to tell you, [cap and trade] is not dead...if it is after the election, it may well be that some members are free and liberated and feeling that they can take a risk or do something."

We know the Left are already planning dirty tricks. We saw it during debate of health care reform. We know they are willing to ignore the will of the people. They ignored the town hall meetings and the clear signal the voters of Massachusetts sent by electing Scott Brown and passed the health care bill anyway. And, just this week, 71% of Missourians rejected ObamaCare through a statewide voter referendum.

Given the Left's track record during this current session of Congress, the American people have the right to know where their elected representatives stand.

At American Solutions, we've developed the No Lame Duck Pledge, and we're trying to get as many citizens as possible to sign our letter urging members of Congress to pledge the following:

I, undersigned Member of the 111th Congress, pledge to the citizens of the State of ___________ I will not participate in a Lame Duck session of Congress. I believe reconvening the Congress after the November 2nd election and prior to the seating of the new 112th Congress, smacks of the worst kind of political corruption. Attempting to pass unpopular legislation subverts the will of the American people and is an abusive power grab.

I've signed the letter, and was hoping you'd sign your name as well so we can send it to your members of Congress. You can do that now by going here.

We believe this pledge will help stop the Left's machine from passing the unfinished and unpopular items on their agenda.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
General Chairman
American Solutions

Please, I strongly encourage you to go to the link and sign this so that your member of congress will take notice accordingly!

UPDATE: Unfortunately it would seem that yesterday (8/10/10) that Rep. Tom Price's (R-GA) resolution to prevent a Lame Duck Session was defeated 236 to 163. This can mean nothing else but that Democrats are keeping this option open.  Keep this in mind come November elections.


Dave Splash said...

Funny how when Newt impeached the president in a lame duck session, no one on the right was forced to wait until the new Congress was in session to proceed.

This is nonsense. Bills have been passed in lame duck sessions for over a hundred years.

There is no "Obama exception" to the rules of Congress. Nice try, though.

Dave Splash said...

And the impeachment example I used was clearly "against the will of the people". All polling in late '98 showed a large majority of the country was strongly opposed to impeachment. Plus the Repubs lost seats in the election, shrinking their majority.

ABC News in September 98: "If he does not resign, do you think Congress should or should not impeach Clinton and remove him from office?"
Should impeach 25
Should not 69
No opinion 6"

Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll. October 6-7, 1998:

"Finally, we would like to ask you one overall question about what you would prefer to see happen with President Clinton. Would you prefer to see him stay in office for the remaining two years of his term, OR, would you prefer to see him leave office before the end of his term, either through impeachment or resignation?"
Stay in office 65
Leave office 34
No opinion 1"

You can find an entire report here.

Not sure how passing a bill - any bill - is more serious than trying to impeach a president, against the clear will of the nation, in a lame duck session.

T. Paine said...

So can I assume you didn't sign then? :)

You are correct in your statement of the facts, Dave. The difference is that the Republicans impeached Clinton knowing that they would likely pay for it in public opinion and votes.

They chose to do the right thing anyway and hold a president that perjured himself, suborned perjury, witness tampered, and hid subpoaened evidence accountable.

They did not do it to further an agenda or consolidate power like the current Democrats are cynically doing. They knew this would cost them and they gained nothing for it, except the knowledge that they were doing the right thing. THAT is the difference, my friend!

Dave Splash said...

always a caveat for the right.

T. Paine said...

Only when the right IS right. (Of course there is a reason why they are called "The Right".) :)

I did notice that you cannot dispute the truth of my argument though, sir...