Alan Grayson and the War on Woman

Tuesday, March 4, AD 2014

Alan Grayson


Alan Grayson is a Democrat Congressman from Florida.  He has a well earned reputation for being bellicose and very loosely wired.  Apparently this persona is not just for public consumption, as Allahpundit at Hot Air explains:

A perfect opportunity to reprint one of my favorite quotes ever. From a Politico story titled “Alan Grayson goes too far for colleagues” published October 26, 2009:

“Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?” asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)

Anthony Weiner would never steer you wrong, you know.

According to the petition, Lolita Grayson was preparing to take the couple’s two youngest children to a play date when Alan Grayson “showed up, unannounced,” and asked to speak to her inside.

After she refused, retrieved his mail and asked him to leave, Alan Grayson “then deliberately and with force pushed [Lolita Grayson] very hard against the front door, causing [her] to fall to the ground as a result,” the petition states.

She told her husband not to touch her, then pushed him in the face and kneed him in the stomach “in order to protect and defend herself,” before calling 911, her petition says.

As she was talking to the operator, Alan Grayson told his wife, in the presence of their children, that she “would receive nothing” in their divorce and would be left “in the gutter,” the petition states.

Her complaint claims that he’s battered her and their kids “from time to time” in the past and that she fears for her safety. Grayson denies all of it, calling the accusations “frivolous” and his wife’s behavior “erratic.”



A guy as even-tempered and progressive as Grayson is surely innocent of these terrible charges, which probably explains why there’ll be 1/100th as much press interest in this story as there would be if a Republican with a similarly high media profile were accused of the same thing. That must also be why, per Guy Benson, the Sentinel doesn’t mention his party affiliation until the 23rd paragraph of a 25-paragraph story.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Alan Grayson and the War on Woman

  • Schadenfreude again. Not as much fun as it used to be. Once again a sad symptom of a sad and sick world in great need of grace.

  • I was beaten and abused in my former marriage. It is surely not funny. I was physically stronger, but was afraid that he would start on my kids after he beat my three year old with a belt. Why do men do these things? I finally left him, now he is my “friend”. It has been years, to get myself healed and back to finally living the life God wanted me to live. Thank Him that I have my two children. Isn’t it time to get men to release the “tough guy attitude”and let them be human?

  • I believe these charges 100%. Living in Central Florida Grayson is constantly in the news for boorish behavior. In 2009 he burst into a Perkins restaurant disrupting a meeting some Republicans were having. The whole incident was filmed, he threatened the woman who was filming, caused a disturbance for all the patrons and stormed out. He stated that someone who started a web-site against should be imprisoned for 5 years and took smear politics to lows during his initial run for Congress.

  • “Isn’t it time to get men to release the “tough guy attitude”and let them be human?”

    Men can be pretty tough and still be gentlemen. The obnoxious behavior of men like Grayson is the opposite of true toughness and courage. The old oath used in the Adventures of Robin Hood film understood the distinction:

    Swear to despoil the rich, only to give to the poor,
    to shelter the old and the helpless,
    to protect all women, rich or poor, Norman or Saxon.
    To swear to fight for a free England,
    to protect her loyally, until the return of
    our king and sovereign Richard the Lion Heart.
    And to swear to fight to the death against our oppressors

  • A man that would hit a woman is no “tough guy.” He is a pathetic coward.

    Seems as if Grayson would like to resurrect the ancient “rule of thimb.” That’s progressive.

    They (progressives) keep talking about this “War on Women.”

  • If memory serves, this is the same gold-plated genius who lost a wad of dough (like tens of millions) in a Ponzi scheme last year and another multi-million pile a couple of years before, all while bragging about what a knowledgeable and expert stock manipulator he is.

    The Lord puts people around us who test our patience and our humility. I wonder if they receive “Well done, good and faithful servant” for living up to that task so tremedously . . .

  • I remember the “calls” in a similar divorce action

    “Did not the Pursuer fall upon her knees, or upon one and which of them…”

  • Our discussion of that, Aiken.

    It would not surprise me if his concatenation of legal problems cleaned him out financially. Looking at his behavior, you get the impression the man has manic episodes.

  • T Shaw wrote “Seems as if Grayson would like to resurrect the ancient “rule of thimb.” That’s progressive.“
    In the case of Gordon v Pye, the Scottish judge, Lord Meadowbank asked (one trusts rhetorically) “Would a husband in this country be permitted to keep his wife in an iron cage or beat her with rods of the thickness of a Judge’s finger, because he had married her in England, where it is said this may be done?”

It Couldn’t Have Happened to a Nicer Guy

Tuesday, December 10, AD 2013

6 Responses to It Couldn’t Have Happened to a Nicer Guy

  • It’s not Grayson’s first trip to the cleaners– in 2009 he was fleeced by a similar
    ponzi scheme called Derivium Capital. That time, he claimed to have lost about
    $34 million.

    The congressman claims to have the financial acumen to make excellent choices
    when building his stock portfolio– at least, that’s how he explains how his
    portfolio did so extraordinarily well while he’s been in politics. The fact that he’s
    been hosed twice by similar ponzi schemes would argue that it is no financial
    acumen on his part that has built his fortune…

  • Alan Grayson has done a fine job of exposing Obamacare. A pat on the head and a prescription of vitamins and exercise is now what is going for healthcare. Grayson did not mention that euthanasia, legal or illegal, will be the rule in hospitals under Obamacare. The money, your premiums and that of the government, will not be under any oversight of the citizens. The money will be only in the oversight of the power structure. With that much money and that much power, “Don’t get sick” is very good advice. In the concentration camps, (my dad came from Poland in 1938) there was “black humor” as the inmates knew exactly what the guards intended for them. The inmates “black humor” was shared compassion. Obamacare says: Die at home, or die in the hospital.

  • $18 and $34 million lost? That doesn’t speak to what he still has . . .

    And he’s a Democratic Congressman? What possible conection could he have with his constituents? Certainly not common sense . . . or, since they keep sending him back, maybe that is the connection.

  • Perhaps T. Shaw or the fellow who signs himself Adam Baum could explain this to us. I cannot figure why one would turn over custody of one’s abstract assets to anything but a reputable and incorporated bank, trust company or brokerage. That aside, what was in it for him? It was only in his interest if the value of his equities were to fall more than 10% in a given time frame, and then only if he had parked the loan he had taken out in some instruments that at least maintained their nominal value.

  • Expect a government bailout for this excuse of a man. “Official undercover work”, “Doing the job he was elected to do,” etc.

  • Wikipedia reports that he was a lawyer specializing in cases of contract fraud!

The Devil and Daniel Webster

Friday, October 1, AD 2010

Daniel Webster is running for Congress in the 8th Congressional District of Florida.  He is a veteran Republican politician, having served as the first Republican speaker of the Florida House of Representatives in 122 years.  He has also served as the Republican majority leader of the Florida Senate.  He is a pro-life conservative.  He is not the Devil.

His opponent is Alan Grayson.  Alan Grayson is the incumbent, being first elected to Congress in 2008.  He is a pro-abort liberal Democrat.  He is doing his best to depict Daniel Webster as the Devil.

My good friend Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia has a first rate post on this subject at his bog and has saved me quite a bit of work:

Back during the Bush years, I can recall debates in the Catholic blogosphere in which Catholics of a certain left-leaning ilk accused those on the right of having questioned the patriotism of anyone who had opposed the Iraq War.

The thing is that I don’t recall these instances of anyone’s patriotism being impugned (outside of David Frum’s infamous piece at National Review in which he accused conservative Catholic commentators Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak of being “unpatriotic”; but then, any conservative worth a damn doesn’t give a rat’s patoot what David Frum thinks or says).

And, in fact, the left’s protestations about having their patriotism questioned appears to have been nothing more than collective projection, imagining that their political adversaries were doing exactly what they would do if they were the ones trying to overcome opposition to a particular objective of national policy priority. This has been borne out since the election of President Obama: how many times have we seen the words “sedition” (also here, for example), “un-American” (also here, for example), “unpatriotic”, and even “siding with the terrorists” (not to mention “racist”) applied to critics of the Obama agenda?

But NEVER in my years have I EVER heard someone in politics say about someone in the opposition “He just doesn’t love America like I do.”

Until now:

Continue reading...

14 Responses to The Devil and Daniel Webster

  • Grayson’s career (and Paul Krugman’s as well) raise the question as to just where the boundaries of permissible expression of malice are within the Democratic Party.

  • On a side note…

    When I first saw the headline I thought you were posting about the classic black and white movie of the same title, based on the short story by Stephen Benet. Maybe for the weekend?

  • In 1832, the historic Daniel Webster actually confronted and exposed true evil: Democrat Party.

    From WSJ Robert Bartley (RIP), Obama, Dodd, Frank ” . . . harked back to the founder of their party. In his 1832 veto of renewing the Bank’s (Second Bank of the United States) charter, Jackson complained that its profits went to foreigners and a ‘few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.’ Daniel Webster replied that the message was a ‘wanton attack whole classes of people, for the purposes of turning against them the prejudices and resentments of other classes.’ The tradition, of course, runs strong even today in the party of Jackson and Obama.”

    The demagogues consistently rely (when untrammelled abortion, gay privileges, teachers unions, millionaire bureaucrats, and lies, lies, lies do not work) on inciting class/race envy and hatred. None of that is Christian.

    In charity I must again state: you will not be going to Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • I would pay T.Shaw to see a debate between you and Grayson.

  • Around the fifty second mark, the Hon. Rep. Grayson makes a lovely performance.

  • I apologize in advance. Debate never solved anything involving unadulterated evil.

  • Ah, but the debate would be endlessly amusing T. Shaw which is why I would pay money to see it.

  • You definitely covered the bad, ugly, and evil Grayson very well.

  • Let us hope Teresa that the voters of his district are reading these type of critiques.

  • Regardless of the truth, your viewpoint seems biased. Political ads are no way to judge a candidate. What a man does is far more important than what he says. Focus on the good and let us judge for ourselves. Ask yourself, would Jesus approve of my action and views. Probably not.

  • Somehow Mr. Grimley I doubt if you can speak for Jesus. Grayson is a disgrace, and his berserk ads are merely the tip of an over the top iceberg of conduct which befits an elected official as well as silk stockings befit a pig.

  • Political ads are no way to judge a candidate

    An advisory from Mortimer Adler many years ago in response to the proverb, “don’t judge a book by its cover”: the cover is what the publisher wants you to see and see first; there is information in that.

  • The ads are things the man has done, are they not? Words are acts. The man’s acts are dispicable and gravely immoral.

Res et Explicatio for AD 2-4-2010

Thursday, February 4, AD 2010

[Update at the bottom of this post]

Salvete TAC readers!

Here are my Top Picks in the Internet from the world of the Catholic Church and secular culture:

1. The USCCB scandal continues as the U.S. bishops continue to issue denials of wrongdoings.

Mary Ann of Les Femmes blog asks why does the USCCB continue to cooperate with evil.

An interesting twist to this story is how the Boston Globe and New York Times covered the homosexual pedophile abuse scandal in the Church quite vigorously yet not one peep when the USCCB is caught red-handed with direct links to anti-Catholic organizations.

2. A great discussion about the origins of the phrase, “The Dunce Cap“, provided for a clarification by Friar Roderic.  He provided a video that explains the steady progression as a Protestant insult, ie, to call Catholic dunces for being aggressive in their Catholic beliefs, to the more secularized version which has turned it into a catch phrase for idiocy.

Continue reading...

Radio Personality: Members of the Opposing Party Should be Denied Health Care

Friday, October 2, AD 2009

Garrison KeillorYesterday Rush Limbaugh said that Democrats should be denied health care.  No, no, wrong radio personality!   If Rush had said anything that stupid, rest assured that you wouldn’t have had to wait to read about it on this blog to learn of it.  The networks would have been shouting the news and condemnatory editorials would have been thundering from newspapers coast to coast.  Instead it was just Garrison Keillor, National Public Radio’s Mark Twain wannabe, who decided that there are just too darn many Republicans and by gosh something should be done about it.  (As they would doubtless phrase a call for gopcide in Lake Wobegon.)  Writing in the Chicago Tribune,  Keillor has this charming sentiment:

When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn’t be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.

Denying health care on the basis of political ideology.  Nice guy.  Of course Keillor was merely joking.  He has a long history of hating Republicans,   but I am sure he merely jokes, and perhaps fantasizes, about the deaths of those who have the temerity of disagreeing with him politically and in reality he would never harm a fly.  At least a Democrat fly.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Radio Personality: Members of the Opposing Party Should be Denied Health Care

  • Keillor is a typical “progressive” idiot. He has a platform and a reputation bought with out tax dollars and he acts as thought that gives him the right to do our thinking for us. God save us from such fools.

    By the way, where did he acquire the reputation for being a humorist? I have tried on several occasions to listen to his radio show and found only low grade witticism no better than what fellow workers produce freely in the course of the workday. And if I’m driving, I am constantly in danger of being put to sleep and driving off the road.

  • I confess Jim that my wife and I in the mid to late eighties listened to Prairie Home Companion. We stopped, partially due to the politics that began seeping in, but mostly because Keillor simply was recycling the same gags and skits in the show with minor variations. It got boring to us, a cardinal sin when your goal is entertainment.

  • I remember coming across the show quite by accident in the mid-80’s. Keillor was talking about being raised in the austere sect of the Plymouth Brethren and his secret boyhood wish to be Catholic (specifically an Italian Catholic – red wine, spaghetti, paintings of nekkid ladies, and “Let’s do the motorola!”) I laughed so hard I cried.

    I think the politics began seeping in because there is only so much material you can squeeze out of Ralph’s Pretty Good Grocery and a small handful of characters. How many Norwegian farmer jokes can you do?

  • Oh, and it’s one thing to bring politics into the show, but Keillor has gotten increasingly bitter and spiteful about it. For a guy who places such a high value on “being nice to each other” – well, apparently conservatives are barely human (we’re all rich and greedy too), so there’s no need to be nice to them.

  • I recall that one Donna! Keillor definitely had his moments.

  • Keillor used to be pretty funny — mostly back before he started retiring with a big farewell episode every year and then coming back again. (Which was, what, 15-20 years ago?) Though even then there was a certain amount of off-key political ranting about Reagan.

    Well I remember the NPR lineup of Prairie Home Companion, following by the BBC imports My Word and then My Music. Ah, youth…

    But this editorial piece of his is just moronic. And then, of course, we have the Democratic congressman from Florida calling saying we need to pass the Obama bill now in order to stop the holocaust.

  • I peg the date that Keillor stopped being even remotely funny and started being a partisan hack at roughly November 1994. He completely went off the deep end and became unbearable to listen to right about 1998.

  • I think some folks here are being lead around on their nose by their ideology. Feigning may be a skill in court, but it is tiresome in writing. I also find it interesting that you don’t just have to disagree with Keillor’s column, but you also can’t find him funny, entertaining, or even like him.

  • I think some folks here are being lead around on their nose by their ideology.

    Unlike you, of course, who is the world’s last independent thinker. Never mind your recent penchant for defending any piece of left-wing agitprop, no matter how silly or offensive. Oh, if only the world had as many courageous, independent minds like Mz Discalced Yooper Forrest.

  • That one should be left up to show how the intelligentsia thinks.

  • “Old men shouldn’t be allowed to doze off at the switch and muck up the works for the young who will have to repair the damage. Get over yourselves. Your replacements have arrived, and you should think about them now and then.” Keillor

    Though given M.Z.’s last comment perhaps its the middle aged that should take over.

  • I deleted MZ’s use of the colloquial term for fornication and e’s quotation of the same. I trust that people can express their thoughts adequately without using some of the language prized by the felons I defend in criminal matters.

  • Donald (?):

    Thanks for cleaning up M.Z.’s mess.


    You’re fortunate that the TAC moderators were kind enough to wipe that little expletive of yours off the record. You might want to exercise a little more retraint. To resort to such profanity can only worsen your case, not to mention, reveals certain aspects of your character, too.

    God bless.

  • Donald: So it was you! Just wanted to bring to the attention of the TAC moderators that little expletive of M.Z..

    I appreciate greatly how promptly you attended to it. Needless to say, such profanity is undeserving a place here at TAC.

    I find it ironic that just a little while ago, Vox Nova, of which M.Z. & Michael Iafrate are part, looked down on such comments as these and even devoted an entry to address the matter with such supposedly noble intention that they would hitherto not allow that kind of foul commentary on their blogs.

    I guess that doesn’t apply to the Vox Novans themselves as far as their own participation goes on other blogs.

  • I knew your intentions were honorable e.

  • If you’re going to go to the trouble of taking down my comment, take them all down, and at least remove my name from Paul’s comment.

  • Nothin’ like some good ad hominems

  • I have no idea of what has transpired in the past 90 minutes, but if MZ would no longer have his full name associated with his comments, then it’s fine by me if you delete that portion of my comment.

  • MZ I have no problem with Paul’s comment or a rejoinder from you so long as no language better left to lock ups is used.

  • Uhhhh… Paul, I believe that little expletive of M.Z., which subsequently followed your comments, was meant for you.

    I can’t be sure, but perhaps it was something you said that enraged him so?

  • e:

    I have no idea what MZ said in response to my comment. I went out for lunch and came back and saw only the aftermath of the controversy.

  • If I see either of you in real life, you’ll regret it.

  • M.Z.

    Was that a threat?

    Hopefully, Paul hasn’t divulged his personal information or the results could prove disastrous.

  • Now my comments make less sense. But they’re still billiant!

  • Yes, e, the *natural* reading of “If I ever see either of you in real life, you’ll regret it” is a physical–albeit conditional and not immediate–threat.

    Having been repeatedly accused of issuing a threat myself (since graciously retracted by the accuser), I hold out hope for another explanation.

  • e.,

    Please stop provoking M.Z. You can say the same thing without having to use certain adjectives and adverbs.

  • Hold on, now —

    Before M.Z. sics his mafia hitmen on me, let me just say that it was Paul who provoked M.Z.’s ire; not me.

    I only entered into the scene because I deplored M.Z.’s subsequent comment to him which contained uncalled-for profanity.

  • e.,

    I know what you’re saying, just being your friendly taco tracker and making sure this doesn’t escalate anymore.

  • Before M.Z. sics his mafia hitmen on me, let me just say that it was Paul who provoked M.Z.’s ire; not me.

    Oh come on e, that’s just not fair. I now have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, hoping against hope that some crazed albino assassin doesn’t whack me while I’m out for a stroll along the Potomac. For the love of humanity, one of his co-bloggers knows exactly where I am every Sunday morning. What chance do I have?

    Time to write that will.

  • Back to GK’s statement. I get the humor and don’t mind it at all. I just don’t get the math. He seems to forget that the 32% self-identified GOPers pretty much pay for their own health care insurance and are almost certainly aggregate net contributors to the care of the other 68%. No money to be saved there unless one expects the GOPers to pay for nothing, which as I think about is probably just shorthand for the public option.

  • Thank you Mike for bringing this back to the post. All further comments on this thread, please focus them upon the post.

  • There’s nothing more spiteful and mean then a Liberal that’s been disagreed with!

  • Pingback: 53-47 « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Stupak Gets His Vote « The American Catholic
  • Reading this blog entry has made me choose to abandon this blog altogether. There are so many things in this world to complain about – why don’t you choose one of the real ones?

  • Suit yourself LTN. This is a fairly eclectic blog when it comes to what we write about, and part of our blog brief is to write about American culture and politics.

  • Pingback: ObamaCare=Jonestown Politically for Democrats? « The American Catholic