Alan Grayson's Emails

"America Needs Alan Grayson"


“Alan Grayson is the Means to Change This Country.”

Leading off our moneybomb this week is the House Democratic Whip Congressman Steny Hoyer. Here are some remarks that Congressman Hoyer made during a visit to Rep. Alan Grayson’s district not too long ago. Congressman Hoyer is a champion for the Middle Class, he serves as the second highest-ranking member of House Democratic Leadership, and he plays a critical role in shaping the Democratic platform. Congressman Hoyer supports Rep. Alan Grayson, and here he explains why you should, too. Take it away, Steny!

“[In 2010], we had an awful, crazy election [in which] we lost a lot of good people. And some of them put their tail between their legs, and went away.

Alan Grayson didn’t do that.

Alan Grayson said, ‘I care too much about my country.’

Alan Grayson said, ‘I want to make sure that my people in Florida, in Central Florida, and in my country, reflect the values and [the] priorities and the vision that I think is important for this country.’

And that’s what Alan Grayson brings to this [Congress].

[I am asking you] to reelect a Congressman who is making a difference, in Alan Grayson.

You tell them that they can make a difference. They have ways and means to do that.

Alan Grayson doesn’t need their money [for his own sake]. Alan Grayson doesn’t need their contributions.

America needs Alan Grayson. America needs your contribution.

Alan Grayson is the means to change this country.”

And there you have it – “Alan Grayson is the means to change this country.” He can make a difference, and you can too.

Contribute to Alan Grayson’s campaign today.

Contribute for America, because America needs Alan Grayson in Congress.

Sincerely,

Team Grayson

Moneybomb This Week. Here’s Why.


Smokin’

Moneybomb. n. An organized fundraising event, usually online, targeted to a certain date or event.

With 100 days to go to Election Day, we’re doing a moneybomb this week. Here’s why:

We need the money.

In 2010, between Labor Day and Election Day, the Koch Brothers spent $4 million on blistering attack ads to defeat me. That could happen again. The Koch Brothers already have been running ads against me, in my district, since last November.

We need to fight back. And you need money to fight back. Your money.

We don’t have $4 million in the bank right now. We don’t even have $2 million in the bank right now. And we know that TV time in Orlando is going to be very expensive this fall, because Skeletor – sorry, Florida Gov. Rick Scott – already is buying it up, with both fists.

So the idea behind this moneybomb is to take this campaign from where we are, to where we need to be. Sunday marks 100 days left before Election Day. We need to be on the path to victory. We’re hoping that this moneybomb puts us there.

It’s happened before. The most successful moneybomb in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives was a Grayson moneybomb. Also the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th most successful House moneybombs. (Rep. Michele Bachmann came in 6th.)

So we can do it. And we need to do it. In the next 144 hours, I need you to be generous – as generous as you can be.

Do it for justice, equality and peace.

Do it for America, or for Planet Earth.

Do it for the future of the ones you love.

Do it for me, and do it for you – because you’ll have a good feeling when you help a good cause.

Do it for whatever reason you want, but do it.

You know that you can count on me. Now I’m counting on you. Click here, and make our “100 Days to Victory” moneybomb a success.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

The Democrat Republicans love to hate

image

Alrighty, Then … .


Well, it’s official, because the New York Times said it: Rep. Alan Grayson is “the liberal Democrat that Republicans love to hate.”

“The Old Gray Lady,” as the New York Times sometimes is called, imparted that revelation last week, in an article about House Democrats who have been successful in coaxing Republican support for amendments on the Floor of the House. Maybe the entire article should have been about Alan; he has done it far more than anyone else.

And – whoops, there it is! – Alan did it again last week. He passed two amendments in the House: one that seriously punishes federal contractors who commit crimes, and a second that ups the federal appropriation for free tax assistance for seniors by 50%.

Oh, and Alan also held the Republicans’ feet to that clear blue flame by doing something that no one else had figured out how to do for the past four years: force a House vote on a federal minimum wage increase. Every single House Republican voted against the increase. Which reveals the House Republicans to the electorate as the callous corporate tools that they really are. Take THAT, GOP.

So how is it that Rep. Alan Grayson is able to win vote after vote for progressive causes in the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party House of Representatives? Is it his charm? No. Is it his good looks? Definitely not.

Nope, what it comes down to is this: Alan Grayson is able to craft progressive amendments that are just enough appealing to just enough Republicans to win. Hence the headline in the New York Times article: “Liberals and Libertarians Find Common Ground in House.”

So why is Alan “the liberal Democrat that Republicans love to hate”? Because he wins, without compromising his progressive principles. Because he wins, without kissing up to them.

Because he wins. God, how they hate that.

What Rep. Alan Grayson is trying to do, what all of us on Team Grayson are trying to do, is to demonstrate something very simple: You can be a progressive, and you can win.

In New York, Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s favorable approval rating is approaching two-to-one. (And believe me, New Yorkers are a very tough audience. Fuhgeddaboudit.) Why? Because Mayor DeBlasio promised New Yorkers paid sick leave and universal pre-kindergarten programs, and then … DeBlasio delivered paid sick leave and universal pre-kindergarten programs.

Get it? You can be a progressive, and you can win. Not just in elections, but in real life. Which is what it’s all about.

So when our Congressman With Guts hears from the New York Times that he is the liberal Democrat whom the Republicans love to hate, his reaction is the same as FDR’s was: “I welcome their hatred.”

When we win, and the GOP loses, they hate that. So be it. Because our whole future is at stake, and we have to win. We have to win.

Team Grayson

“This ain’t no party.
This ain’t no disco.
This ain’t no fooling around.
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey.
I ain’t got time for that now.”


- Talking Heads, “Life During Wartime” (1979).

The Tea Party: “They Live Fact-Free Lives”


The Wit and Wisdom of the Tea Party



A few weeks ago, Rep. Alan Grayson joined Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC, to discuss Tea Party calls to impeach President Obama. Here’s what they said:

[Protesters calling for President Obama’s impeachment, followed by attacks on President Obama by Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Rep. Blake Farenthold.]


Rev. Al Sharpton: These are elected officials s[m]earing the President by accusing him of being a dictator, of ignoring the constitution, and talking about impeachment. Only a few hundred far right extremists showed up at that rally today, but their ugly rhetoric about the president—that’s already spread to the halls of Congress. Joining me now are Congressman Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, and Angela Rye. Thank you both for being here… . Congressman, you’ve been fighting these guys for a while, but even by their standards this was embarrassing.

Rep. Alan Grayson: Oh, I agree. Listen, they hate the president, it’s that simple. They hate the first African American President, and they’re never going to change. What also will never change is their utter detachment from the mood of the public. The public wants us to concentrate on jobs, on benefits, on pensions, on education, on health care, on housing, and they want to concentrate on Fast and Furious, and they want to concentrate on Benghazi, and any other non-scandal they can try to rev up. They are completely, totally out of touch, and ultimately the public and the voters will punish them for it… .

Rev. Al: You know, Congressman, you and Angela brought up Benghazi, and Benghazi was certainly something that was brought up today at this rally. Listen:

—begin clip of protesters—

Protester One (video): Do you think it was just incompetence, or do you think we had criminal activity going on?

Protester Two (video):
Well, it could be that, too. But it’s pure incompetence.

Protester One (video): Criminal negligence at the very least. And they’ve got to pay, but until we wake these people up in this building over here, they’re not going to do it. And that’s what we’re all here for today. We’ve gotta get these people woke up.

Protester Three (video): This is gonna get shoved down their throat, whether they like it or not.

—end clip of protesters—

Rev. Al: Your reaction to this, Congressman?

Alan: They live fact-free lives. These are people who have lost whatever narrow tether they’ve had to reality a long time ago. What really upsets me is not so much that they ignore the truth, and they trample over what’s right. What really upsets me is they think they can dictate to the American people what the political process is all about. These people think that if they woke up one morning and they wanted to talk about nothing but left-handed leftwing Liberian lesbians, then we’d all have to talk about left-handed leftwing Liberian lesbians, and we’d have no choice about that. The American people have problems that need to be solved: Unemployment, low wages … .

Rev. Al: Now, Congressman, I want to show you some other Republicans that made the news this week and that is some longshot candidates in the Idaho primary debate for governor. Now, let’s listen to some of their greatest hits. These are Republicans candidates for governor in Idaho.

—begin clip of debate—

Candidate One: I don’t like political correctness. Can I say this? It sucks. It’s bondage. And I’m about as political correct as your proverbial turd in a punch bowl.

Candidate Two: Well, what would you do if they came out to take your kids? Well, I’d shoot them, what else would you do?

Candidate Two: Well, Governor Otter wants to kill a wolf, I did kill a wolf. While it was still on endangered species.

Candidate Three: And Fat Jack’s old lady, Fat Jack’s wife, said “Get this lunatic out of my cellar!”

Candidate One: As it says in my motorcycle club, “Hey diddle fiddle, right up the middle.” That’s my style.

—end clip of debate—

Rev. Al: So, Congressman, I mean, not to be extreme here, but does the Republican Party, with their image, need these kinds of guys running for the Republican nomination in Idaho? I mean the party, really, really, really has a little image problem, I think.

Alan: Listen, the only way to win a Republican primary these days is to out-crazy all the other candidates. And I think a lot of Americans wished they’d all get off their TV screens, just get the hell out of [our] lives. Americans want somebody who’s actually going to take a stab at solving their problems. The Republicans are always getting in their way, and saying something crazy in the process.

Rev. Al: Thank both of you, Congressman Grayson and Angela Rye. Thank you both for your time tonight.

Alan: Thank you.

There’s your Congressman With Guts, telling it like it is, like always. To support Alan Grayson’s reelection campaign, please tap that blue button below. And thanks.

War in Afghanistan: Enough is Enough


The Entanglement



At the end of George Washington’s second term as President, in his 1796 farewell address to a grateful nation, Washington urged America to avoid foreign entanglements. This is what he said:

“Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

“Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”


In Washington’s time, our “foreign entanglements’ were with Europe; today, they are worldwide. We still are suffering from our “foreign entanglement” in Afghanistan. Now in its twelfth year, that entanglement is the longest since Washington warned us against them.

Following the 9/11 attacks, we defeated an entrenched hostile military force in Afghanistan, playing defense, with fewer than 1000 U.S. Special Forces troops. We did so in barely a month. The battle was over, and the war was won Then our hubris-ridden military-industrial complex, led by a bellicose President who had gone AWOL himself from May 1972 to October 1973 and spent his entire presidency trying to make up for it, occupied that 12th-century nation with between 10,000 and 35,000 troops. Under President Obama, our occupying army then multiplied, to 100,000 soldiers.

Recently, President Obama announced a policy to “end the war” in Afghanistan by maintaining something like 9999 American troops there, for a long time to come. That’s the same number of American soldiers who occupied Afghanistan in the first place.

If you think that stationing just under 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan means that the war is over, then Big Brother has a few words for you: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.”

President Obama is my President, he is the leader of my party, and I voted for him twice. But on this issue, President Obama is wrong. Dead wrong. As I said recently on Thom Hartmann’s national TV show, it’s time to put an end to the war in Afghanistan, and bring our troops home:

Thom Hartmann: The House unanimously passed your Afghanistan election resolution. Can you tell us about that?

Rep. Alan Grayson: Sure. We are approaching the point now where Afghanistan is starting to function like a normal country. A lot of blood has been shed, and a lot of taxpayer dollars spent, in the interim. In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan should have been over a long time ago. I’m sure many Americans agree with that. If you combine the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, we have a quarter of a million servicemen who now have permanent brain abnormalities as a result of these two efforts on our part. Plus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist puts a price tag of four [tr]illion dollars on these wars, which is roughly five percent of our national net worth… . These wars have been very unfortunate. The fact that there was a free election in Afghanistan, which is leading to what appears to be a voluntary transfer of power from one leader to another, is encouraging. But frankly, in my opinion, enough is enough. We should leave Afghanistan and make sure that the Afghan people take control of their own fate, rather than occupy that country for another decade.

Thom: Do you have any thoughts on what’s happening in Iraq today? We were talking with David Ignatius earlier from the Washington Post on this program about Mosul falling and Fallujah already gone, the possibility of Iran getting involved — [what are] your thoughts on that?

Alan: It demonstrates the complete failure of the Bush administration, and the waste of four trillion dollars. That expense was supposed to guarantee that what is happening today would never happen. Obviously it was a failure. The idea that we can somehow radically transform a country’s history, and its arc through time, simply by sending over a hundred thousand troops to occupy it is false. We need to understand our limitations, and avoid another wasteful intervention like the one that we saw in Iraq and the one that we’re still seeing in Afghanistan.

America is the most powerful nation on Earth, and the most powerful nation that the world has ever known. We are so powerful that many of our greatest problems are the ones that we create ourselves. There was no reason to occupy Afghanistan after the Taliban were defeated. There is no reason to remain there. Let’s bring all the troops home.

In George Washington’s words, let’s choose peace.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

“Wow. That’s Pretty Damn Impressive.”


First the Reporters, Then You.



Recently, on Thom Hartmann’s national TV show, Rep. Alan Grayson gave the inside story on how he was able to pass a shield law protecting reporter sources in the Tea Party-controlled U.S. House of Representatives at 12:40 am one night, with 175 Democrat votes and 53 Republican votes. Here is how it went:

Thom Hartmann:
In the Best of the Rest of the News, if the Senate doesn’t screw things up, we might finally get the kind of media shield law that our democracy requires. Late last month, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the so-called Commerce, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015 (H.R. 4660) by a margin of 321 to 87. There’s nothing all that interesting about H.R. 4660 – it’s your basic cut-and-dry appropriations bill that lays out how a handful of federal agencies, including the DOJ, can spend their money. H.R. 4660 is the kind of bill that Congress passes all the time, without a lot of media attention. But, believe it or not, there actually is something really interesting about H.R. 4660, something that could have a huge impact on how our government interacts with the only industry mentioned by name in the Constitution: the Press. That something is H.R. 4660 Section 561, an amendment sponsored by Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. Section 561 says, “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify about information or sources … that he regards as confidential.” Basically, what this means is that the government can’t force journalists to testify in court against their sources, even if their sources are on trial for leaking really top secret information that, in the government’s opinion, could threaten national security. This is a huge deal. Right now, the Obama administration is trying to make New York Times reporter James Risen testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA agent whom Risen used as a source for his book on the CIA. Risen tried getting out of testifying against Sterling by appealing his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that court refused to hear his appeal, confirming a lower court’s decision that said that Risen couldn’t ignore a subpoena just because he’s a journalist. Risen’s case cuts right to the heart of freedom of the press, and he could actually end up going to jail over this. When the government makes journalists testify against their sources, it basically makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, at least in any meaningful way, and it scares other potential sources from even thinking about talking to a reporter.This isn’t just bad for the media. It’s bad for democracy.We need the media to be the Fourth Estate, a functional fourth branch of government that keeps the other three in check, and holds them responsible. And when reporters can’t work with sources, especially government sources, because those sources are scared that they’ll testify against them, that makes it impossible for the press to do what it needs to do the most – cover government corruption, secret CIA programs, and other malfeasance by insiders. We need a media shield law that protects acts of journalism, as well as journalists themselves. That’s why Section 561 of the Commerce, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is so crucial. It protects the most important act that any journalist can ever do – work with sources to write a story. The House of Representatives has spoken. It believes in protecting the freedom of press. Soon we’ll find out if the Senate does, too. Joining me now for more on this is the man behind Section 561 of the Commerce, Science, and Related Appropriations Act, Alan Grayson, the Congressman from Florida’s Ninth Congressional District. Congressman, welcome back to the program.

Congressman Alan Grayson: Thank you.

Thom: Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks so much for putting forward this amendment. I’m really, really[impressed]. This is a good thing. One of the interesting things about your amendment is that it passed with substantial bipartisan support. Initially, it was declared on a voice vote not to have passed, and you called for a roll call, and it turned out 53 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted for it. Your thoughts on that, on the bipartisan nature of that?

Alan: Well, it was appealing to Democrats because it’s a standard civil liberties issue. It’s in the Constitution – freedom of the press is in the First Amendment. We’ve had this problem now going back 42 years, since an unwise Supreme Court decision that said that there was no such thing as a journalism shield law, except in extreme circumstances. And for 42 years, people of good conscience have been trying to change that, and make sure that the free flow of information can continue. Unfortunately, the courts have looked to Congress to act, and Congress has failed to act. In this case, we appealed to Democrats as a civil liberty issue, we appealed to Republicans as a constitutional issue. They often claim to be supporters and respecters of the Constitution and we said, “Read it, see what it says.” The First Amendment prevents this kind of activity by the government that is happening time after time, to the point where journalism is becoming a felony. And when I made that argument to the Republicans, 53 of them accepted it, and we did reverse the result of that voice vote.

Thom: Now, your amendment passed just days before the Supreme Court refused to hear James Risen’s appeal. Were you putting that amendment together with his case in mind, or was it just a coincidence? What are your thoughts on the Risen case?

Alan: Well, I think it’s an example of a problem that’s been with us for many, many years. There have been reporters that have actually been incarcerated for failure to reveal their sources, when their sources were confidential sources. We have to respect the free flow of information in this country. If we don’t, then we’re all losers. We are well on our way to establishing first-class and second-class citizenship just by virtually the fact that five million people now have access to classified information and 300 million don’t. That alone means we’re heading for difficult days. In this case, the media, going back to the Pentagon Papers and earlier, has tried desperately to point out to us unconstitutional acts by the government. But the national security system then goes and tries to incarcerate both the whistleblowers and the reporters for simply doing their jobs.

Thom: Under the Obama administration, we’ve seen a pretty massive clamp-down on leakers — to be honest, an almost Nixonian assault on journalists who report leaks. Risen himself has called the Obama administration a threat to the freedom of the press, which makes me uncomfortable. What’s your take on this administration’s record on press issues, or is this just what the Executive Branch does, cover up what the Executive Branch is doing?

Alan: I think it’s unfortunate. There’s one particular law involved here that the administration, the Obama administration, has applied to whistleblowers more than all other administrations combined. I don’t understand exactly why the administration is acting this way. I wish they would rethink that. If we’ve reached the point where a journalist like Glenn Greenwald needs to fear for his own safety and freedom returning to his country of origin, then we’ve really gone astray. But I’m encouraged by the fact that Republicans, more and more, see this issue the same way that Democrats do, and we were able to get a vote on an important issue like this despite the normal iron grip of the Republican leadership, that has us voting on establishing committees and renaming post offices as much as anything else.

Thom: Procedurally, does this now go to the Senate for consideration, or is the Senate creating its own version which then will end up going into conference committee?

Alan: Yes, one of the beauties of this approach is that both the House and the Senate have to vote on appropriations bills each year or otherwise the government shuts down. We’ve been very active in my office in taking advantage of that fact. Typically, the House leadership, the Republican House leadership, has denied us votes on immigration reform, on minimum wage increase, and so on. So we take advantage of these must-pass votes, in order to put in progressive ideals in the form of legal proposals. This will go to the Senate, like every other appropriations bill goes to the Senate. This is one of the secrets in the way that we were able to pass 13 amendments on the Floor of the House last year, more than any other member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, even though we lose every single time on a party-line vote.

Thom: ‘We’ being Alan Grayson?

Alan: ‘We’ being Alan Grayson, whom Slate Magazine said was the most effective member of the House because of this.

Thom: Wow. That’s pretty damn impressive. So, what do you think the odds are that the Senate is just going to pass this bill as it stands and it goes right to the President, versus they’re going to go back into, for example, your amendment, and pull it out or fiddle with it?

Alan: I think that the Senate will definitely not pass the bill as written, because it includes very harsh budget cuts in other areas of the bill that the Senate and the American people simply don’t agree with. This is largely a Tea Party bill. What I’m hoping is that people will appeal to senators, individual senators, to support the shield law, and that there are certain champions of freedom of speech, like Senator Bernie Sanders in the Senate, who will pick this up as a cause of his own… .

Thom: We have just a minute left. If I could just go back to the press for a second. When Dianne Feinstein started talking about “let’s only have a shield law that protects people who get a paycheck as a reporter,” I suggested that we should be protecting acts of journalism as opposed to journalists. I’m curious, [what are] your thoughts on that distinction?

Alan: I agree with you, and in fact, in order to make that point clear, I submitted legislative history. One of the nice things about our amendments is that they’re short. This was 52 words. But sometimes you need to explain exactly what you meant. That Grayson amendment now is backed up by four pages in the Congressional Record explaining that point and other points about how this amendment is to be applied.

Thom: That’s great. Congressman Alan Grayson, you’re doing such great work in the United States House of Representatives.

Alan: Thank you.

Thom: Thanks so much for being with us. Thank you.

Here on Team Grayson, we’re proud to be part of the team. You can see why.

Help the Reform Super PAC to End All Super PACs

image

Support MayDay PAC, and Help Take Back Our Democracy.

From time to time, I turn these notes over to someone else who has something to say that you need to hear. Today, on Independence Day, it’s Prof. Lawrence Lessig. Lessig has lauched MayDay PAC, the Super PAC to end all Super PACs. MayDay is a fund to help ordinary people join together, and demand clean elections and good government. Let’s declare our independence from sewer money in politics. I’ll let Lessig explain further:

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson


Dear Friend:

This is Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig.

Since the early 1920s, aviators and mariners have used the word MAYDAY to signal distress.

On the sea, when another captain hears that call, there is an obligation to lend aid. At MayDay PAC, we are calling a MAYDAY on this democracy. Americans from across the political spectrum believe our government is broken. More than 90% of us link that failure to the role of money in politics.

And yet our politicians do nothing to break that link. Instead they spend endless time raising campaign funds from the tiniest fraction of the 1%.

Our democracy is held hostage by these funders of campaigns. We have announced a plan to get it back.

Can you watch this video explaining our MayDay PAC and chip in $10 or more to help take our democracy back?

Several years ago, I decided to give up my work on copyright and Internet policy, and take up the fight against corruption.

I started collaborating with others on the best way to build a grassroots movement around campaign finance reform. Washington won’t fix itself — The People need to take action.

That’s why we created MayDay PAC, an ambitious “Super PAC to end all Super PACs” that will make reform a 2014 campaign issue. We’ve raised millions so far, shocking the political world.

Watch this video explaining MayDay PAC and chip in $10 or more if you want to be part of this movement.

With hope,

Lawrence Lessig

Frank Underwood, von Clausewitz, Rumsfeld and Yogi Berra.


You Never See This Guy in Washington, DC

To the almost 4,000 supporters who contributed to our campaign during the past week, thank you. Thank you very much. We raised more than $70,000 in cash for the campaign, plus more than $300,000 in pledges. We’re about to get serious with polling, canvassing and direct mail this month, so your help is both timely and appreciated.

And to everyone else who reads these missives, we’ll still take your money. Just click here.

And now on to something that I need to get off my chest. This past week, to absolutely no fanfare whatever, the last declared chemical weapons left Syria. (Isn’t it interesting how the drums of war earn endless media coverage, but the dove of peace flies unnoticed?) I say the “last declared weapons” because those are the only ones that we know about, but any evidence of undeclared chemical weapons in Syria is even harder to find than any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So as far as anybody can tell, all of the Syrian chemical weapons are gone.

And this was accomplished without U.S. military intervention in Syria.

I was very outspoken about my opposition to military intervention in Syria – outspoken in seven national TV interviews in a single day, and over 40 media interviews in four days. I said that Congress would not authorize war against Syria, because the Administration’s military plans were costly and dangerous, they would not achieve any strategic purpose, and they would not and could not eliminate those chemical weapons. And I was right. If the Administration’s war plans had come to a vote in the House, they would have been defeated by a margin of roughly 10 to 1. Because the American public spoke up – people like you spoke up.

I understand that there are some who think that the threat of Congress authorizing military action is what drove Assad to relinquish chemical weapons. I’ve always been skeptical of that argument, since there were five different public counts (including one at the Washington Post) all showing that House opponents of military intervention outnumbered supporters by 10 to 1. Anyone with internet access could find that out, and I assume that Assad has internet access. Did Assad relinquish those weapons because his command-and-control structure had broken down, and he could no longer control when and where those weapons were used? Or because he was afraid that they might fall into rebel hands, because so much of his weaponry already had?

In the words of two great (albeit fictitious) military strategists, Francis Urquhart and Frank Underwood, “You might very well think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.”

Now think about this: What if we had gone to war against Syria last year? We would have:

(a) hit the Syrian regime hard, and
(b) delivered the Syrian chemical weapons into the hands of ISIS.

Yes, ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The ones whom the Administration is helping the Iraqi Government to fight. Those are ones who crucify and behead their enemies. Picture what they could do with poison gas.

So my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Unless it’s my enemy. And what about my enemy’s enemy who also is my friend’s enemy, even though my friend is allied with my enemy?

As far as I can recall, I’m the only one who pointed out last year that just because you’re hurting the bad guy (Assad) doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re helping the good guys, or whoever passes for that in Syria these days. I remember one national TV interview in which the interviewer asked me whether we should be helping the Syrian rebels. I answered, “Which ones: the Al Qaida graduates, or the anti-Semites?”

The German military strategist Carl von Clausewitz understood this problem well. He referred to it as “the fog of war.” Here is a translation of what he said:

“War is an area of uncertainty; three-quarters of the things on which all action in war is based are lying in a fog of uncertainty, to a greater or lesser extent. The first thing needed here is a fine, piercing mind, to feel out the truth, with the measure of its judgment.”

Or to put it as Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did, ironically in the context of explaining why we never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq:

“There are known knowns; there are things that we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

President George W. Bush wasn’t exactly a “fine, piercing mind,” and so in the search of those nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we flushed roughly 4,000 American lives, 400,000+ Iraqi lives and $4,000,000,000,000.00 down the you-know-what. After that lesson, I was hoping last year to see some “fine, piercing mind” emerge from within the Administration during the debate of U.S. military intervention in Syria. But I was disappointed. It was more along the lines of “let’s just toss in some missiles, and see what happens.”

One of the greatest unknowns in war is in knowing – or really, not knowing – what effect your own actions will have. On that subject, we must turn to yet another great military strategist, Yankees Manager Yogi Berra:

“It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.”

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a lesson that our leaders need to take to heart. To which I offer this sequela:

When in doubt, PEACE.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

Our Party. Our Country. Our Last Chance.


All We Are Saying …

Every three months, Members of Congress are measured on one variable. Not how many laws you’ve passed. Not how many people you’ve helped. Not how many wars you’ve stopped.

Nope. You’re measured by how much money you’ve raised. And somehow, even though crass corporate special interests hate me, and the Right Wing vilifies me, nevertheless, we always do fairly well. How?

The answer is: You.

Yes, you. I’m the only Member of Congress who raises the majority of his House campaign funds from donations under $200. The only one.

GIVE NOW. JOIN OUR MOVEMENT.

You are why I have been named the most effective Member of Congress. You are why I was able to prevent war with Syria, and why I can work to prevent another war in Iraq. You are why I can take on the bad guys: the Koch Brothers, the climate change deniers, and Wall Street. Because while other Members of Congress slave away telemarketing their services to rich people and multinational corporations for campaign cash, I can investigate, ventilate, demonstrate, regulate and legislate.

And when we do good things for the timeless cause of justice, I can celebrate. We all can celebrate.

GIVE NOW. YOUR DONATION MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

I can make a difference, because you help me make that difference.

It’s near midnight. It’s the end of the quarter.

Join (or rejoin) over 100,000 people who have supported this campaign. People who are bringing forth (in Lincoln’s words) a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the propositions of justice, equality and peace.

GIVE NOW, AND LET’S GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.

Is the Deadline Tonight at 11:59 or at 12:00?


Because You Care, And So Do We.

I’m often asked this question. Actually, I’ve never been asked this question. But I’m curious.

Is the FEC deadline for Q2 contributions at 11:59 tonight, or is it at 12:00?

By my count, I’ve received 859 e-mails from candidates this week saying that it’s at 11:59 pm. I have also received 1046 e-mails this week saying that it’s at 12:00. And I have received 2398 saying that it’s at “midnight.” (Like you, I get a lot of e-mails from candidates.) Well, you can put this e-mail in all three categories. But inquiring minds want to know – is it 11:59 or is it 12:00?

(Here’s a nasty thought – maybe the deadline is 11:59 am today, not 11:59 pm. In that case, if you haven’t given by now, you’re already boned. Unless you give right now, and your contribution falls through a time warp.)

I’m pretty sure that if you want to make a second-quarter contribution to my campaign, you can do so at 11:58 pm tonight. And I’m sure that 12:01 would be too late. I suspect that 11:59 would be OK, as would 11:59.9, as would 11:59.999999. Sort of like Zeno’s Paradox, except with federal regulations and Olympic event clocks.

But here’s the real question: Do you want to take a chance? Do you want to risk missing the deadline, or as we used to say in the Bronx, “screwing the pooch”??? (What does that phrase mean, anyway? Does it actually refer to, you know … . I don’t want to think about it.)

Or would you rather click here, and just GET IT OVER WITH!

Now maybe you are one of the 3000+ supporters who already have contributed to our campaign this week. If so, may you live for 100 years, and you are excused from reading to the bottom of this page. And maybe you are one of the hundreds of people who committed this week to donating $20.14 to our campaign each and every month. If so, may you live for 1000 years, and you are excused from reading these e-mails until your commitment expires.

As for everyone else, I hope that you at least live long enough to click that CONTRIBUTE button. And enjoy your golden years, basking in the love of your loved ones, of course.

Look, in case you haven’t noticed, we’ve already sent you four end-of-quarter e-mails in the last four days. Maybe you’ve already given. But maybe you’re a procrastinator, like me. Yes, indeed, that’s just one more thing that you and I have in common. “Why wait for the last minute?” my staff asks me. “I’ll get back to you on that” I reply. I tell them that procrastinators make the world go ‘round – when we’re good and ready. Procrastinators of the World, Unite! – ASAP.

So you could wait until 11:59 pm tonight before you make that contribution – just to see what would happen. Or you can click here, and do it now. It’s up to you.

(By the way, in case you don’t really understand how the intertubes work, if you click on any of those bold, underlined phrases that refer to making a contribution, you are magically transported to a webpage where you can … make a contribution. Also, if you click on this word: rutabaga. Because everyone loves rutabagas.)

So if you haven’t contributed yet, and you make a contribution to our campaign at any time between now and 11:59 pm, that’s just procrastination, which is OK. But if you don’t, that’s not “pro,” that’s just “crass,” you’ve got a heart of “tin,” and you’re not helping our “nation.”

(I bet you thought that I’d never be able to pull all that together. Woo-hoo!)

Bottom line: Click here now, and show us some love. The feeling is mutual.