1. LeeAnne

      do you have a link?

      I’d like to expand on that. Al-Qaeda is good for starters. There’s also much from the Nazi playbook being used by the Republican right wing since the end of World War II that explains their rise to power to the extent that they now threaten US democracy and freedoms.

      Nazis also used fear propaganda to legitimize their regime.

      And, neoconservatives are anything but conservative; they are radicals. Just as German National Socialists were not socialists; they were a right wing, big business, authoritarian regime with US international banking and industry backing without which they would never have succeeded as far and as long as they did.

      It took 8 years for the UK, US and USSR together to defeat the Germans in World War II.

      Let’s go …

        1. RalphR

          She’s not nuts (maybe just melodramatic). You, on the other hand, are woefully uninformed. The propaganda, or as they prefer to label them, communication techniques are straight out of Goebbels (you can read his book to compare if you doubt me).

          1. eric anderson

            Ah, so on one side it is “Goebbels” and on the other it is Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

            Maybe it would be more productive to cite specific acts of deception, skew, and spin rather than apply ridiculous labels.

            I’d point out that both parties have supported the war, in various degrees, but they have always funded it. As for Obama’s promises about withdrawal from the theater, well, I’m not going to put a label on it, lest I be a hypocrite. Let’s just say his campaign rhetoric was misleading. LOL

    2. goswald hughes

      It is good election year politics designed to rub the right the wrong way. It is true however that foriegn wars sapped the strength of Rome, Britain, France and now they are sapping us. But the solution is not easy. To wind down the giant military industrial complex we need to reallocate armadas of engineers into civilian enterprises like cleanenergy and space. There is retraining involved. Secondly the privilege of being the worlds policeman comes with a price but keeps the peace. Third, there is a pathdependency that has developed after the second world war that keeps our economy (especially California ) humming even though that means we have to be picking fights with people, or be supplying other peoples fights. GDP does not distinguish between Goods and Bads it grows when more of either is produced. The tax break argument is bogus, for most people the first 35,000 of income is taxfree anyway. Also disingenuous (which is why I like him – he can misrepresent as well as the right wingers) is the Nato claim. Nato can afford to spend less on defense and more on social programs because of the American Defense umbrella.

      All that being said I am a Grayson fan. He my kind of liberal. No softy. Can be as militant, devious, and pugnacious as the other side. I think if we could find a way of maintaining military supremacy without actually going to war (which I think Obama is trying ) we would be all set.

      The point of military supremacy is that it provides security so that economic activity can proceed unimpeded. Even a single small attack on our economy can bring the world to it’s knees so the price we pay for peace may be a necessary burden to keep global prosperity. Even so I don’t subscribe wholeheartedly to the neo-con notion of peace through power. As President said at west point graduation, that it cannot be our only tool to keep the peace.

      Bush’s war and gift to the right has cost us over one trillion so far more than his tax cuts and unfunded Medicare gimme. I guess the moral might be that military spending is Ok but. War spending is not (but then what else do you do with all the hardware inventory?)

  1. psychohistorian

    American imperialism is making us poor.

    Our tax dollars are paying for us to economically rape the physical and human resources of other countries so more in the US can be unemployed but the rich who own the banks and multi-national corporations are happy.

    I appreciate Grayson going after sacred cows.

    1. Carrick

      THIS is the truth. We’re funding a global operation that gets physical resources and labor as cheap as possible. The companies reap the profits, an in return, we get some stuff with a cheap sticker price.

      It’s all subsidized by our taxes. The original resource owners and the end consumers lose, the extractors win.

      Its similar to how the U.S. Forest Service operates. Frequently, the Forest Service spends more money building access roads for logging companies than they receive in payment for the lumber extracted. When there is a profit, sometimes the Forest Service collects as little as $2 per tree. (None of this factors in the costs that eventually spring from environmental damage — just ask the volunteers and FS employees restoring riverbeds and spawning streams wrecked by soil erosion, then talk to the unemployed fishermen.. and wonder why salmon costs you so much.)

      I wonder if you can do a study on this — tracing the tax payer subsidies that go into making foreign govts give up resources cheaply, and lumping it onto the final price tag the consumer pays.

      1. Sharonsj

        The “some stuff with a cheap sticker price” tends to be poorly-made-falls-apart-right-now crap that could be poisonous, foul-tasting and bacteria-laden (be it toys or farm raised fish)–or at the very least an appliance or electronic item that stops functioning in weeks. I don’t think this is a fair exchange.

  2. John

    Damn. Run on this and DO IT!!!!!!!

    The military budget should be cut in half and it wouldn’t even be noticed in results there is so much waste and overcharge.

    1. Greg

      Cut the military budget in half and we will only bring it down to the levels of the 1990’s. Put in that context, it hardly seems unreasonable.

      1. Carrick

        Listen to you liberal traitors… stop being afraid of the Muslim terrorists, read the Constitution, abolish all laws and the government, free enterprise, Thomas Jefferson, speak English!, we have the best health care, everyone gets rich, fuck that other guy and HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE!

    2. ilsm

      The US military spending is more in inflation adjusted dollars than in 1970 at the height of the cold war and the massive intervention in Southeast Asia.

      The difference; there is far more capital involved and much of the labor is contracted out at huge profit rending expense.

      Money spent on the US war machine takes resources away from productive use and drives up the costs of materials and technical labor.

      Those aspect make it a political coin, good jobs at great pay for no benefit, tossed around and perpetuates the pillaging of the US economy.

      Not only the wars but the war machines are making the US poor.

      Empires die when the costs ruin them.

  3. nowhereman

    Did anyone else see Grayson’s “you can’t Kill Us All” video in tribute to the Kent State Massacre?
    I remember when it happened, I walked around in a daze for weeks. I just couldn’t wrap my head around Americans killing Americans.
    Since 911, I believe it is more dangerous now than it ever was back then. We now disappear dissidents, we call them terrorists, we confine and torture them without a formal charge.
    They may not be able to Kill Us All, but they don’t need to. They have through the “Homeland Security” excuse, been taking away basic civil liberties and the sheeple look on with blurry eyed national pride.
    I just don’t get it. I’m sorry but this is not America anymore.

  4. ex-PFC Chuck

    Rep. Grayson and other critics of defense spending from the left could make their cases a lot stronger if, instead of butter-instead-of-guns appeals like this that appeal mainly to the anti-war left, they would instead ally themselves with the military reform movement that was kick-started 30+ years ago by the late John Boyd, a then recently retired USAF colonel. A major thrust of the movement’s argument is that it is the very profligacy of available funding that is undermining the USA’s military effectiveness. It’s case is presented in a collection of coordinated essays published about two years ago as” America’s Defense Meltdown.” Amazon link: http://tinyurl.com/yc7dqe8) The authors are all former military officers, DoD career civilian employees and/or Congressional staffers. Boyd’s name is still radioactive to much of the defense establishment, 35 years after his retirement and 13 years after his death. Curiously, however, Secdef Gates has invoked his name several times in the last year or two, so there must be some receptiveness to his ideas at least at that level. Boyd’s wikipedia entry (http://tinyurl.com/cewxa) includes a brief overview of the Reform Movement, although there was much, much more to his career than this.
    A more complete treatment of that career can be found in Robert Coram’s biography “Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War” (http://tinyurl.com/y88aa68)

    1. John

      This doesn’t appeal only to the left my friend.

      Last time I checked they had whipped up the right about the deficit. Couple that with most of the country feeling like their future is uncertain economically and this can get traction.

      The whole, “a strong defense” talking point that has lead to this stealing of our future well being at home is coming to an end.

    2. Tao Jonesing

      Did you actually watch the clip?

      Calling what we’re doing “defense spending” is ludicrous. What are we defending ourselves against? We spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Most of the rest of the world are our allies, and our spending dwarfs that of the only two countries, China and Russia, that could conceivably constitute a threat. Grayson makes all of these points.

      And “anti-war left”? Are we in a war right now? Yes, we’re occupying two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars ended long ago, and we should stop using the term war as applied to those countries.

      The first step in stopping the corporate welfare is to reject the frame that this is “defense” spending for “war.”

      1. John

        Agree. We need to start calling it the Military budget or the war budget. Always. Let’s change the name, first. Then we change people’s thinking.

    3. million mutilee march

      Old soldiers are hopelessly brainwashed, they can’t reform. If they ever crowdsourced defense analysis it would boost readiness and send a horde of war drones home to get real jobs. In an EVOKE-type public war game I have no doubt a bunch of civilian war nerds could kick the Pentagon’s ass with an optimal force half the size.

  5. DownSouth

    Grayson certainly shines the spotlight on Obama, and what is revealed certainly isn’t pretty.

    We got rid of the white man, but what did we get in his place? It reminds one of India. Once India got rid of the white man, Gandhi expressed his profound disappointment in the new order: “My patriotism does not teach me that I am to allow people to be crushed under the heel of Indian princes if only the English retire.”

    One thing is for certain, and that is that Obama is no Martin Luther King:

    Now, I’ve chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.


    There is…a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.


    A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies….. This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.


    It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.
    Martin Luther King, “Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam,” sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, April 30, 1967

      1. DownSouth

        Tao Jonesing,

        Great stuff there.

        It kind of goes back to what MLK said in his most famous of all speeches:

        I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    1. alex black

      Great quotes. Martin Luther King’s words have always made my skin tingle.

      Obama’s have kinda made my skin crawl….

    2. craazyman

      How could Ghandi have been surprised? LOL

      The pyschopathic dragon has no skin color, culture, race or nationality. India is a bloodbath, before the British and after. It’s a mind-wrench of anti-Gnostic suffocation.

      This is why I developed Contemporary Analysis — to help the world find the structures of thought and language that can navigate the dilemma of these dualities and ascend into the higher realms of sentient knowing.

      That and a few beers and we’re good to go. You can wear diapers on your head or togas on your butt or white frilly colors like the Dutch masters. And it all fades like dissolving dreams into the magic of the third eye and its wondrous light.

      -Professor Delerious T. Tremens, MA, PhD, Scotch on the Rocks, and woods and meadows in the afternoon under the trees.

  6. Abhishek

    Other countries need to pay for their own defense.Lots of countries in the world owe their security to the US without paying a dime.Don’t know why US has to bear this burden for free.

    1. psychohistorian

      The elephant in the room that you can’t see is US imperialism. Follow the money.

  7. Sydney Weinberg

    Yes indeed. We need more millionaire lawyers specializing in federal contract law with degrees from Harvard, the Kennedy School and Harvard Law. Yes please! More like Alan Grayson in Congress.

    Just bow down to your masters. It is THEIR world after all. Morts like us are just visiting. What a joke. And doesn’t Grayson know it too.

    1. ArmchairRevolutionary

      So, is there a correct background that we should want in Congress? Can you tell us what that is?

  8. charcad

    Yes indeed. A superb example of meaningless CSPAN demagoguery of the type pioneered by Newt Gingrich.

    Grayson’s individual donors:


    I’m sure people in Orlando just love having this vast synagogue of out of district persons “voting” for “their” candidate. Yessirbob, real representative “democracy” at its finest.

    And a sample of Grayson’s campaign expenditures.


    What’s striking here are not the large media buys. Its the large outlays for mere worker bee level grunt work. In former times such labor came from real local volunteers. It’s not surprising that someone like Grayson has to hire day laborers. His own roots in the district are so shallow as to be nonexistent. And most of his support is sourced from outside. The absence of any real groundswell of local support is also natural.

    And it’s very indicative in a place like Orlando with a large peopulation of youngish retirees. You can see them by the thousands swinging away on the hundreds of golf courses, cycling at speed and jogging by.

    So it goes with a “progressive Democrat”. The typical Republican Congressbeing is virtually identical. The only real difference is the different ethnicity of the individual out of district high roller donors.

    So it goes with these alien impositions who subsequently vote “Yes” for AIPAC’s agenda, who authorize Neocon wars and who supposedly speak for the American people in voting for TARPs.

    1. ArmchairRevolutionary

      “A superb example of meaningless CSPAN demagoguery…”

      Is it really? Or is it focusing on the sacred cow that no one can seem to touch in Congress?

      The rest of you comment is pretty meaningless. So what? He has donors from outside his district. I think most reps do. So what? he hired some day labor for menial work. That means he knows how to get things done.

      1. charcad

        Or is it focusing on the sacred cow that no one can seem to touch in Congress?

        That Sacred Cow is called “Israel”. AIPAC promoted resolutions and legislation affecting “Israel” routinely pass by 400+ votes. At this point you couldn’t get that many members to openly oppose pederasty.

        I think most reps do. So what?

        I don’t think ANY reps should be allowed to accept one penny from outside their districts. The very proposition is subversive of really representative “democracy”. And in view this is the last thing anyone in Washington or New York genuinely want.

        But I can at least entertain myself by calling spades spades. And externally controlled and funded media farces farces.

        The fact you don’t like it is not my problem. And if anyone is too lazy to spend time at http://www.fec.gov and see what their 50% profit margin local news franchises failed to tell them – by design – that’s their problem.

        You can call Congresspeople many things. With respect to FCC commercial tv and radio licensees I’d call them highly valued top tier customers.

        1. Anonymous Jones

          Actually, it is your problem.

          I know you desperately don’t want it to be, but unless you decamp to some other planet that doesn’t include all the lazy idiots for whom you have contempt, it’s gonna remain your problem.

    2. greenback

      This is what they call an ad hominem attack. Can you refute the ideas he proposed?

    3. DownSouth


      Why the animosity towards Jews? I dislike elite-network politics as much as anyone, but by making this about Jews, and not about elite-network politics, you miss your target, and make yourself appear to be a bigot.

      It seems to me that Grayson’s anti-war stance is completely consistent with public opinion within the Jewish community, which has consistently, even back in 2001, been more anti-war than the US population in general:

      “Even on the eve of the war, fewer American Jews than other Americans were supportive of the prospect of going to war with Iraq,” said David Harris, the AJCommittee’s executive director. “As American public support has declined since 2003, Jewish support has been declining in step, but because it began at a lower level, it continues to remain at a lower level of support than other Americans.”


      And by the way, not all Jews are neocons, though of course some, and some very prominent ones at that, are. And I’d also question your AIPAC = Jew inference. Actually, there’s a word for what you’re doing here. It’s called stereotyping.

      1. charcad

        The thread subject here was Alan Grayson, Jew. And http://www.fec.gov reports show that a great many Jews in New York, Washington and elsewhere sent him quite a bit of money. I merely observed the fact and commented on it.

        Had the topic been former GOP Congressperson Katherine Harris (formerly my vacuous and dull Congressperson for six years) I might not have mentioned it. Her external funding came from entirely different sources. These were almost entirely white people from that faction of the GOP called “country clubbers”.

        Or I might have observed it in connection with Democratic opponent and Friend of Hillary Jan Schneider’s two failed runs at Harris. She also had lots of NYC and DC money showered on her. And she also has all the roots of a tumbleweed in this district.

        Former GOP Congressentity Chip Pickering of Mississippi’s 3d CD is an example of someone who probably raised over 75% of his campaign funding from outside his district and over half of that from PACs. But very little from people with obvious Jewish names. He’s also a good example of the extremely low level of character promoted by this imperialistic media centric system.

        To assuage your concern, don’t worry, I’ll happily ban candidates accepting external funding on a completely non-discriminatory basis. The entire concept of outside money is subversive of really representative government.

        1. DownSouth


          Let’s try this again.

          To begin with, just let me state that I don’t really give a rat’s ass if Grayson is a Jew, a black transsexual atheist or a white, wealthy, heterosexual, protestant male. It’s of no import to me whatsoever.

          I also deplore elite-network politics as much as the next guy. But for anyone who knows much about modern-day US politics, it’s pretty much a universal feature of the system, not only in national, but state and local politics as well. So the fact that Grayson engages in elite-network politics is not in and of itself unusual or remarkable. Ah, but as you are quick to remind us, most of his elite-network is made up of Jews! Ah yes, those tricky Jews! They’re not to be trusted! Grayson must be a closet neocon, or some secret member of the National Union Party.

          charcad, if you have any evidence that Grayson is a neocon, a secret member of the National Union Party or any other hawkish Israeli party, or even pro-war, I’m all ears. But all these implications that he must be these things because he is Jewish, or because his elite-network includes many Jews, is nothing but pure, unadulterated racism.

    4. Ken

      Did you know the Canadian government hires people to post government propaganda… wonder if that happens in the US?

  9. Chris

    People who earn $30,000 already pay no federal income taxes, so he would just push the limit up by $5000. It sounds less impressive this way, and then we would have to listen to right wingers complain about 60% of americans pay no income tax instead of just 50%

    1. Braden

      I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Chris hasn’t earned an annual income of $30,000 in quite some time.

    2. TheJames

      Wow thats good news. Wait, why did my recently ex-employer take all that $$$$ out of my paycheck and where did it go?

    1. mm

      Exactly… and that is why fatelephant would not mind being taxed 99%. His or her wages will just adjust accordingly.

  10. Big T

    This fucking idiot is bitching about 150 billion going to our military and he just sign a health care bill(that he didn’t even read and knows nothing about what is in the bill) which will cost Trillions of taxpayers dollars and will socialize 1/6 of America’s private sector and not to mention the job losses in the private sector. That’s like burning all of your money and then going to the couch to look for spare change so you can put food on the table. This is why Washington is so fucked up. A circus of clowns and Grayson is on the main stage with obama as the ring master.

    1. MG

      The cost of the war is much, much greater than this supplemental $150B. That is just the tip of the iceberg because the really large costs are going to be the healthcare costs down the road for the VA and to a lesser degree pensions.

      I am not worried though as much because the US gov’t has squelched repeatedly on its veterans starting with the American Revolutionary war veterans in several states after the revolution. Add War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, and Vietnam War vets to this list. Hell odds are that if you are a vets and the federal gov’t has made promises to you about future pay/benefits/programs that it will squelch at on least a significant minority of them. Frankly the only veterans who were treated well generally were those after WWII.

    2. jonboinAR

      I’ll bet you’re right, he hasn’t read all of it, but I’ll also wager he knows what’s in it much more deeply than you do saying that it socializes 1/6 of the American economy. What hooiey! A strawman and nonesense.

    3. Braden

      Reading comprehension is a difficult skill. My personal advice is to practice. Pick up a copy of the CBO’s score of the health care plan and try to find how it will lead to the loss of 1/6th of the U.S. health care sector. If anything, it will increase employment as more Americans are forced to purchase health care.

  11. sgi

    Yves, you do yourself no favors with this post. There are other ways of dealing with the issue of military spending.

    1. billwilson

      Huh? It is a great post. Something has to be done to shake up the staus quo (don’t touch defense, just eliminate Social Security). Grayson has an impact. His in your face health care rant (The GOP health care reform program is “Don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly”) marked a turning point in the HCR debate.

  12. emca

    Comrades, comrades!

    Do not listen to this parasite. The fatherland needs a swollen military to deter its multiple, dedicated and ruthless enemies (all 600 of them) to protect itself from the insidious scourge of Islam (and socialists) whose motive is only the hatred of US power and glory. Yes the complete annihilation of an enemy is the only true vocation of the patriot. He does not need this drivel from paid lackeys questioning the buttress of Christian morality (oil).

    But sleep well comrades for tonight our armies are and will remain large and vigorous; our leaders watching over our slumber, keeping us secure, ever mindful of the enemy within and without.

  13. mundanomaniac

    i didn’t read all the following comments after that of Down South with those sentences from Martin Luther. Now it’s since a certain time, that I have a Martin Lutheran feeling every time,I read a take of Alan Grayson. He even appeared at the brink of my german fallin a sleep. Angela Merkels step from last wednesday appeared to me in the same way: something in the power of fairytales, (wifes, children, neighbours understand it) thrown between the preyers.

    Sorry, this is no adult saving the world

  14. bob

    How about a bill that would not change the military budget.

    This bill would instead increase the pay of the actual soldiers 300% and require that anything the military is going to use more than once be purchased, not leased on a no bid cost plus contract.

    We could still have money left over for a tax cut.

  15. Chris

    Chamlers Johnson, military historian, on the fact that “things that can’t go on forever don’t.”


    “However ambitious President Barack Obama’s domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.”


    1. psychohistorian

      Hearing today that Petraeus is being put forward as a potential presidential candidate scares me. We don’t need a military president that wants to continue the imperialism done in our name.

  16. Jeffrey

    When I saw Yves in New york during her book tour, a question came up about who in today’s crazy political and economic environment could lead us to the “promised land sort of speak. I raised my hand and murmered ” Alan Grayson” I think he has the brains and chutzpah to get elected nationally and do what Obama has failed to do. Stop the insanity. This clip is one of many examples of his potential greatness in my huble opinion. By the way Yves was fantastic and thrilling for me to see in person.

  17. steelhead23

    I have to imagine that Yves is a tad disappointed with us. She tosses out some interesting red meat and we tear into each other instead of the feast itself. How about the second half of Mr. Grayson’s proposal – the first $35 k of taxable income would be tax free. That would put dollars back into the hands of those most likely to spend it – a true stimulus package – and hey, you conservatives should love it because don’t you like have a knee-jerk disdain for taxes? And, in case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. cannot afford to maintain its empire – its either shrink the empire – or extract more tribute – and since folks hate us for extracting tribute, its either shrink the empire or accept being broadly hated. Your call.

    1. rob

      It’s all of our call. Despite the over the top presentation, ending the wars would save a few dollars on our “Chinese credit card” bill. If we are serious about cutting spending, this is definitely one way to do it.

  18. K Ackermann

    There are so many things wrong with this that it’s not even funny.

    First, the tax cuts should go to the wealthy, not to every American.

    Second, this cut will leave us dangerously exposed to Al Qaida’s tanks, aircraft carriers, and unmanned drones that spray nasty chemicals in your face.

    Third, this takes money pure concentrated money out of the MIC, and spreads it thinly around like a drizzle of water to bake in the hot sun and evaoprate, and this leads to an increase in greenhouse gasses.

    Fourth, the could set a dangerous precedence. Where would it stop? There will be a dangerous drop in funds available for lobbying, and that could have a drastic effect on unemployment.

    Grayson shows us his hatred of capitalism by snarkly dissing Chinese credit card companies. These pinko liberals just want to take your guns away to give to criminal illigal immigrants who will force you into a gay marriage or to have an abortion. They are pure evil. If you support this bill, then you are evil, and we are watching you.

Comments are closed.