Archive for the ‘Alan Grayson’ Category
The Florida Democrat manipulates video to make his opponent seem to urge wives to ‘submit’ to husbands. He didn’t.
September 27, 2010
We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said.
In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him “Taliban Dan.” But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: “Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ ”
The ad compares Webster to “religious fanatics” in Afghanistan and Iran. It says Webster opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which is true. But it also claims that “Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us,” and to support that claim it blatantly misuses a video clip of Webster speaking at a Christian conference in Nashville in 2009.
The ad, which first aired Sept. 25, starts by saying, “Religious fanatics tried to take away our freedom in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida,” cutting to a clip of Webster saying, “Wives submit yourself to your own husband.” Later the ad cuts to a clip of Webster saying, “She should submit to me. That’s in the Bible.” And twice more, it shows him saying, “submit to me.”
We contacted both campaigns to gather information on the claims in the ad and to obtain a copy of the video to better understand the context of Webster’s remarks. We also contacted the Institute of Basic Life Principles, which is a non-denominational Christian organization that runs programs and training sessions. Robert Staddon at the institute provided us with the section of Webster’s speech (see the video below) that deals with the Bible verse in question.
In an e-mail, Staddon said the video was “taken from a talk to fathers” at the Advanced Training Institute regional conference in Nashville in 2009. ATI is a religious-based program developed by the Institute of Basic Life Principles “to support parents in raising their children to love the Lord Jesus Christ.” Bill Gothard, the founder of the Institute of Basic Life Principles, said that Webster home-schooled his children using the institute’s curriculum and has given speeches at the training institute on more than one occasion.
The full context of the remarks make clear that Webster is not telling wives to submit to their husbands. Just the opposite.
Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.
Grayson campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala told us that the campaign interpreted Webster’s remarks to mean that he believes wives should submit to their husbands. As evidence of this interpretation, Drzymala pointed to Webster’s comment to husbands, “She can pray that, if she wants to.”
The phrase “if she wants to,” though, shows that Webster was not imposing his “radical fundamentalism” even on the people at the religious training conference. Also, the Grayson campaign’s interpretation is aided only by selectively editing the video to concoct a phrase that doesn’t even exist in the video: “She should submit to me. That’s in the Bible.” That’s a mash-up of two sentences that read: ”Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do.”
This is the second time in as many weeks that the Grayson campaign has resorted to cheap gimmicks to attack his opponent. As we wrote last week, Grayson falsely claimed Webster “refused the call to service” during the Vietnam War. In fact, Webster received routine student deferments in high school and college, and was disqualified for medical reasons after college.
As for Webster’s position on abortion, it’s true that he would prevent women from obtaining abortions even when the pregnancies result from rape, just as the ad says. And that goes for incest as well. He has been endorsed by the Republican National Coalition for Life, which states: “[W]e have listed the Republican Congressional Candidates whose responses to the RNC/Life Questionnaire indicate they are faithfully pro-life, and do not justify abortion for babies who are conceived through rape or incest, have a handicap, or a genetic defect.” When asked directly by a local television reporter whether he would support an abortion for a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape, Webster said “that’s not the issue we’re talking about” and evaded the question. Grayson’s campaign posted that clip on YouTube.
But the ad’s claim that Webster would “deny battered women … the right to divorce their abusers” is a distortion. The claim is based on legislation he sponsored in the Florida House of Representatives 20 years ago. The bill, HB 1585, would have allowed Florida residents the option of a “covenant marriage,” which would limit their divorce rights. Under the proposal, couples could dissolve a covenant marriage only in cases of adultery. But that would not have applied to anyone who did not choose to enter a covenant marriage. The legislation died in committee in June 1990. Webster has not advocated for covenant marriages as a congressional candidate.
Webster’s positions on abortion and marriage, and his religious views, are certainly fair game. But Grayson crosses the line when he uses manipulated video to cast Webster’s views in a false light, just as he did when he concocted a false accusation that Webster had been a Vietnam draft dodger.
– by Michael Morse and Lara Seligman, with Eugene Kiely
Manifest Destiny as is practiced today is a term used by the Progressives, Socialists, Elites and Communists that there is a widely held underlying belief among them , that they are the “chosen people,” had a divinely inspired mission to spread the fruits of their beliefs to the less fortunate and unwashed masses.
The idea of an almost religious Manifest Destiny is a common staple in the speeches and newspaper articles of the Progressives. Most of the exponents of Socialism were Democrats.
Critics see the Manifest Destiny rationale as a thinly veiled attempt to put an acceptable face on taking freedom from other peoples. Motives are often described as well-intentioned efforts to improve the lot of backward masses, but in truth the motivators were greed, power and control. The Manifest Destiny crowd are thinly disguised in wonderful names – such as Center for American Freedom.
The American people having derived their origin from many other nations, and the Declaration of National Independence being entirely based on the great principle of human equality and freedom, that we have, in reality, but little connection with anyone trying to take our freedom away. On the contrary, our national birth was the beginning of a new history, the formation and progress of an untried political system, which separates us from the past and connects us with the future as regards the entire development of the natural rights of man, in moral, political, and national life, we may confidently assume that our country is destined to be the great nation of futurity with individual freedom.
Alan Grayson it’s a SCAM
A U.S. judge has agreed to referee a dispute among Florida political activists over who can use the phrase “Tea Party” in their name.
A trial has been scheduled to begin on December 6 in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach, Florida, in a lawsuit that questions whether anyone has a trademark or intellectual property right to the “Tea Party” name.
Hundreds of groups call themselves part of the Tea Party movement whose name alludes to the 18th century U.S. revolt against tea taxes and British colonial rule. They usually oppose big central government, deficit spending and President Barack Obama, but there is no hierarchy or formal affiliation among them.
While Tea Partiers generally oppose federal government intervention, they have turned to the federal court to resolve a dispute that arose after Fred O’Neal, a central Florida lawyer and longtime anti-tax crusader, and Alan Grayson, registered the “Tea Party” as a Florida political party in August.
O’Neal said the name is an acronym for the “Taxed Enough Already” party and that he hoped to recruit candidates to run against both Democrats and Republicans.
Nearly three dozen people and groups who called themselves part of the Tea Party movement filed suit against O’Neal and two associates in January, accusing them of trying to “hijack” the movement and confuse the public.
“They’re trying to promote candidates that we wouldn’t support,” said plaintiff Everett Wilkinson, who has been active in Tea Party events and groups. “The people trust us more than the political parties. We work hard to keep that trust.”
The plaintiffs said O’Neal’s and Grayson’s group is a “fake” Tea Party, a claim he scoffs at.
“I looked for the rule book but I never found it,” O’Neal said on Tuesday. “I don’t know what it takes to be an authentic Tea Party versus a fake Tea Party.”
The plaintiffs, many of whom have “Tea Party” as part of their group names, said they feared O’Neal would sue them for trademark infringement or violation of intellectual property rights. Florida law says the names and symbols of registered political parties cannot be used without permission of the party’s executive committee.
Each side also questioned the other’s political motives.
Tea Party supporters lean Republican — 59 percent of Republicans support the movement compared with 36 percent of independents and only 9 percent of Democrats, according to a March poll by Harris Interactive.
Wilkinson contends that O’Neal is plotting to run third-party candidates in order to split the Republican vote and help elect liberal Democrats.
O’Neal contends the Republican Party is behind the lawsuit against him and is trying to shut down his political party because “they don’t like the idea of having to compete for fiscal conservative voters.”
O’Neal and Grayson’s tea party is a SCAM
Grayson shows his Socialistic – Communistic- Progressive Doctrine
Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, characterized Gibbs as “Bozo the spokesman” and said he ought to be fired for doing “a miserable job.”
Robert Gibbs, the press secretary complained that the “professional left” would not be happy with President Obama unless the U.S. had “Canadian health care and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon.”
Then Alan Grayson – (some say the leader of the Professional left) countered that he’d prefer “to see Gibbs show some frustration over 15 million unemployed Americans. I’d like to see him show some frustration over 40 million people who can’t see a doctor when they need to. (UN TRUE) I’d like to see him show some frustration over the Republicans, who have blocked the president’s plans and his programs.” (UNTRUE)
Grayson didn’t stop there, saying: “I don’t think he should resign, I think he should be fired. He’s done a miserable job.”
At his press briefing on Wednesday, Gibbs told the White House press corps that he has no plans to leave his job.
Grayson continues to spread his obscured lies and untruths trying to be flamboyant so that someone will pay attention to him.
Orlando — This morning, Conservative candidate for Congress Todd Long filed suit against Alan Grayson in Federal Court in the Middle District of Florida in Orlando over Grayson’s controversial promotional DVD he sent out to 100,000 households at the taxpayers’ expense, costing $77,000. Long’s suit asks the Court to find this taxpayer spending violates The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, which limits Congressional spending to “the common Defence [sic] and general welfare of the United States.”
In the lawsuit, Long asks the Court to order Grayson reimburse the public treasury and pay for the expenditures with his campaign funds or personal funds and asks for injunctive relief to bar Grayson from spending any more taxpayer dollars on the DVDs or other promotional materials.
“The Defendant Grayson’s DVDs are clearly outside of what the Constitution allows. The Defendant and his colleagues have already bankrupted us and saddled us with a $13 trillion national debt and they are literally destroying our great nation with this reckless, abusive, and unconstitutional misappropriation of taxpayer dollars. The people in District Eight know I will always fight for them, whether it’s this abuse, securing our borders, or the numerous other areas where they are not doing their job,” said Long.