There will be a surprise House vote on the Fast Track trade giveaway bill tomorrow.

Last Chance: You Should Call These Members of Congress Dear FRIEND: Let me get right to the point; then I'll dawdle later.There will be a surprise House vote on the Fast Track trade giveaway bill tomorrow. It will be a very close vote. If you want Fast Track to fail, you should call one or more of these Democrats, who voted in favor of Fast Track last week. If only four of them vote against it tomorrow, then we will win. Here is the list: Rep. Ami Bera (Calif.) - 202-225-5716 Rep. Jim Costa (Calif.) - (202) 225-3341 Rep. Susan Davis (Calif.) - (202) 225-2040 Rep. Sam Farr (Calif.) - (202) 225-2861 Rep. Jared Polis (Colo.) - (202) 225-2161 Rep. Mike Quigley (Ill.) - (202) 225-4061 Rep. John Delaney (Md.) - (202) 225-2721 Rep. Brad Ashford (Neb.) - (202) 225-4155 Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) - (202) 225-3461 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) - (202) 225-4811 Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.) - (202) 225-0855 Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.) - (202) 225-5711 Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.) - (202) 225-4311 Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) - (202) 225-1640 Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) - (202) 225-8885 Rep. Don Beyer (Va.) - (202) 225-4376 Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.) - (202) 225-1492 Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.) - (202) 225-2605 Rep. Derek Kilmer (Wash.) - (202) 225-5916 Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.) - (202) 225-5506 Rep. Suzan DelBene (Wash.) - (202) 225-6311 Rep. Jim Himes (Ct.) - (202) 225-5541 Rep. Hinojosa (Tex.) - (202) 225-2531 Rep. O'Rourke (Tex.) - (202) 225-4831 Rep. Peters (Calif.) - (202) 225-0508 Rep. Rice (N.Y.) - (202) 225-5516 Rep. Sewell (Ala.) - (202) 225-2665 If I were you, I would stop reading here, and start calling. However, if you want more of an explanation, then here it is. "Fast Track" is a bill that lets anything that the Trade Representative calls a "trade bill" slide through the House and Senate like a you-know-what through a goose, with no amendments, with no time for hearings, and with as little as 83 seconds of debate for each House Member. (For goodness sake, I know a lot of Members who can't even clear their throats in only 83 seconds.) A couple of weeks ago, fake trade supporters in the Senate bought enough Democratic votes to get past a filibuster. I have no idea what the real quid pro quo was, but the stated quid pro quo was that "trade assistance" (retraining support for who lose their jobs specifically because of a trade deal, and can prove it) would be included in the bill, and passed at the same time. So the Senate joined Fast Track and trade assistance at the hip. When it came up for a vote in the House last week, with the two joined together, the Fast Track part passed by an exceedingly close vote - 219 to 211. The Democrats listed above voted in favor of it. If only four of those Democrats had voted against it, then it would have failed on its own. But it failed anyway, because a huge majority of the House voted against the trade assistance part, meaning that the whole thing crashed and burned. Tomorrow, the Powers That Be are bringing back the Fast Track section on its own, without trade assistance, and thus contrary to what the Senate voted for. Their hope is that the House will pass Fast Track on its own, regardless of the workers who lose their jobs. And my hope is the opposite. That our calls with turn the tide, and defeat Fast Track once and for all. Call and say this: NO on Fast Track! You won't be the only one; I can guarantee it. One GOP Member of Congress told me last week that his calls were running 100-to-1 against Fast Track. We need to be that 100 tomorrow. Call a Member of Congress now, and say this: NO on Fast Track! Courage, Rep. Alan Grayson

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

You're tired of Middle Class America getting hosed

Disco Inferno Dear FRIEND: "Burn up the phones" - what is that, some new cyberterrorism threat? A wild new "app"? Nope; it's what happens when you, and like-minded others, exercise your right to be heard. It's time to burn up the phones on Capitol Hill. The Powers That Be have set a vote on the horrific "Fast Track" bill tomorrow. (I would call it "execrable," but I'm not exactly sure what that means.) If you care about anything, anything at all, then please pick up the phone, call (202) 224-3121, ask for your Congressman, and register your disapproval. Say this: "Vote NO on Fast Track." If you feel that your talk needs to be pointed, then here are your talking points: (1) Our trade debt stands at eleven trillion dollars ($11,000,000,000,000.00). That's more than $35,000 for every human being in America - including you. "Fast Track" would pave the way for new trade bills that would increase that. How are we ever going to pay that money back? (2) Fast Track applies to whatever the Executive Branch calls a trade agreement, even if it has nothing to do with trade. (3) Fast Track unconstitutionally restricts Congress from holding hearings, conducting investigations, debating a bill and offering amendments - basically, its job. In fact, it could restrict each House Member to only 83 seconds of debate. (4) No other bills get this special treatment - not bills on taxes, or Social Security, or defense, or transportation, or healthcare. Nothing. (5) Fast Track applies to trade bills that the Executive Branch hasn't even released to the public. (6) None of the "standards" that Fast Track sets for trade agreements is enforceable - not one single standard. Or you can just say that you're tired of Middle Class America getting hosed. I sure am. If you have a Democratic Congressman who "gets it" on Fast Track, then you can call one of these undecideds instead: Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) - (202) 225-3341 Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) - (202) 225-2040 Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) - (202) 225-2861 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) - (202) 225-2645 Rep. John Carney (D-DE) - (202) 225-4165 Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) - (202) 225-8020 Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) - (202) 225-3236 Try flattery - there's plenty of that in Washington, D.C. "Sir or Ma'am, if you vote against Fast Track, your courage and leadership will ring in dulcet tones for generations to come. You will become a legend, not only in your own mind, but in the minds of every living human being, and fetuses too. Vote against Fast Track, and when you walk amongst your people, as they glance downward in respect, they will sing your praises: basses, baritones, tenors, contraltos, sopranos and even falsettos. They will shower you with flowers - not only mere annuals or biennials, but perennials that will bloom in the same manner as your overwhelming renown. You will be beloved and worshipped by considerably more than 50.1% of the electorate. If you vote against Fast Track, then everyone - and I mean everyone - will like the cut of your jib." Look, it's showtime. Make the call. Let's try to inject some democracy into the plutocracy. Courage, Rep. Alan Grayson

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Trans-Pacific Partnership have to be revealed to the American People

As In, Right Now Dear Friend: Big news: there will be a vote TODAY on the Grayson Amendment, to lift the veil of secrecy over trade giveaways. Here is the amendment, regarding appropriations for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement whose negotiating texts are confidential." Call 202-224-3121, now, and tell your Representative to vote for the Grayson Amendment. What does that mean? It means that trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership have to be revealed to the American People, not shoved down our throats. Even Members of Congress have been jammed up over this. Here is what Sen. Barbara Boxer said about it, a month ago: Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., today blasted the secrecy shrouding the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. "They said, well, it's very transparent. Go down and look at it," said Boxer on the floor of the Senate. "Let me tell you what you have to do to read this agreement. Follow this: you can only take a few of your staffers who happen to have a security clearance - because, God knows why, this is secure, this is classified. It has nothing to do with defense. It has nothing to do with going after ISIS." Boxer, who has served in the House and Senate for 33 years, then described the restrictions under which members of Congress can look at the current TPP text. "The guard says, 'you can't take notes.' I said, 'I can't take notes?'" Boxer recalled. "'Well, you can take notes, but have to give them back to me, and I'll put them in a file.' So I said: 'Wait a minute. I'm going to take notes and then you're going to take my notes away from me and then you're going to have them in a file, and you can read my notes? Not on your life.'" Should we let our economic future be bargained away, in secrecy? "Not on your life." Don't let secret trade deals deprive us of our future. Call 202-224-3121, and tell your Representative to vote for the Grayson Amendment. Normally, our Government classifies information to keep it away from foreigners. But with these trade agreements, the foreigners have the information - it's Congress and the American People who don't. The European Union has taken the entire "Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," which our government claims is confidential, and posted it at a website. And WikiLeaks, to the embarrassment of our government, has done the same with parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Q. What other laws can be negotiated in secret? A. None. Our Constitution does not allow for secret laws. Three years ago, more than 100 Members of Congress wrote to the U.S. Trade Representative, and asked him to make the Trans-Pacific Partnership public. He refused. Last month, President Obama said that "any critic" could see the full text of the agreement. So far, no one has. The Trade Representative is treating Congress like a mushroom farm: Keep us in the dark, and spread fertilizer all over us. The truth shall set us free. Call 202-224-3121, and tell your Representative to vote for the Grayson Amendment. Today, there will be a vote on the Grayson Amendment. If you've ever felt like calling Congress, today is the day. Not tomorrow - that will be too late. Today. It doesn't matter whether your Congressman is a Democrat or a Republican. We just need 218 votes, whether they are red or blue. And you can help make it happen. We really need to shed some light on this trade treachery. And as Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." In short, the public has a right to know. Help make that happen. Courage, Rep. Alan Grayson We're not gonna take it. Never did, and never will. We're not gonna take it. Gonna break it. Gonna shake it. Let's forget it, better still. - "We're Not Gonna Take It," The Who (1969).

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

“We Have a Federal Deficit Because We Have a Trade Deficit.”

“We Have a Federal Deficit Because We Have a Trade Deficit.”

Low Visibility in Washington, DC These Days Dear FRIEND: Team Grayson here. Recently, our Congressman with Guts was on national TV, explaining in simple terms the awful ramifications of the "Fast Track" trade legislation that had just passed the Senate, and is heading to the House. Proponents of "Fast Track" are proffering smoke and mirrors, as they try to jam it through Congress. Congressman Grayson is just about the only one in Washington, DC, who can blow away that smoke, and shatter those mirrors. Listen: Thom Hartmann: In the best of the rest of the news, it's illegal to disclose the details of "ObamaTrade." And the President is using that secrecy to confuse the American people. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama downplayed Senator Elizabeth Warren's opposition to the TPP because, he said, "she's a politician like everyone else." This week, Warren's office released a report titled "Broken Promises: Decades of Failure to Enforce Labor Standards in Free Trade Agreements." Rather than criticizing the TPP outright, the report shows what happened over 20 years of so-called "free trade deals" promising to help American workers and consumers. Yesterday, Presidential consultant Michael Wessel published a story in Politico showing how the Obama Administration has made it impossible for elected officials, or advisors like himself, to criticize details of the deal. And unlike past trade deals, even the Administration's cleared advisors, like Michael Wessel himself, can't make specific public criticisms. They also aren't being kept up-to-date on what revisions and proposals are being made by partner countries, which make consultations much more restrictive than past administration's trade deals, according to Wessel. Taking the Senate floor last week, Barbara Boxer shared her story about trying to read the TPP's text. Take a look: [Video] Sen. Barbara Boxer: And as soon as I get there, the guard says to me 'hand over your electronics.' OK. I gave over my electronics. Then the guard says 'You can't take notes.' I said 'I can't take notes?!' 'Well, you can take notes, but you have to give them back to me and I'll put them in a file.' So I said 'Wait a minute, I'm going to take notes, and then you're going to take my notes away from me? And then you're going to have them in a file and you can read my notes?'" TH: So our elected officials can't make notes, can't make real public criticisms, and the President's advisors are not even up to date on changes to the deal? And we're supposed to believe that this deal is being negotiated in the best interests of the American people? Here now to discuss what's going on with the TPP, and the TPA ["Fast Track"], US Representative for Florida's 9th District, Congressman Alan Grayson. Congressman Grayson, welcome back! Congressman Alan Grayson: Thank you. TH: And thanks so much for being with us and for sharing with us that extraordinary video that you did that's over at TradeTreachery.com. Do I have that right? REP. GRAYSON: That's right, and more than a million people have watched it on Facebook alone. TH: Oh, that's fabulous. Let's start at the beginning here. Can you explain the difference between the TPP and the TPA, this new acronym that the Administration has rolled out? Go for it. REP. GRAYSON: Yes, sure. The TPA is procedural, the TPP is substantive. The TPA is what people have been referring to when they speak of "fast track legislation," when they refer to that. The TPP is the deal itself, which the fast track legislation would create a fast track for. Then there's the TTIP, which is the Atlantic version of the TPP. That's also a substantive arrangement -- a treaty, if you will -- that the fast track [legislation] would enable. TH: So, what is the argument against Fast Track, the TPA? Let's start with that, because that's what's being debated right now. REP. GRAYSON: Well, it's a delegation of our legislative responsibilities to the executive branch and to unelected officials. What Fast Track does, very simply, is that it takes away our responsibility for hearings, for oversight, for subcommittee and committee and floor amendments, and in the Senate, even the filibuster. It sweeps all of that away to make a "fast track" for this so-called trade legislation that would increase the deficit, send jobs offshore, and eliminate our sovereignty. That's what it does. In fact, one provision in the fast track legislation limits the debate for House members on this bill to 83 seconds each. That's 83 seconds each! TH: Wow. To your best understanding of what's in the deal, and I realize if you've read any part of it you can't tell us because you would go to jail . . . What will, in your opinion, what will the TPP do to the American worker and the American economy? REP. GRAYSON: Drive us deeper and deeper into debt, and further destroy our jobs base. What the TPP does is that it continues a long line of trade giveaways that started with NAFTA. Since NAFTA went into effect, we've lost 5 million manufacturing jobs, and 15 million other jobs. Fast-Track greases the skids for deals like that to go even further. Right now we have free trade agreements, about a dozen of them, with 18 relatively small countries. Fast-Track, the TPP, the TTIP, all of those would extend that to 50 other countries, almost overnight. And the problem we have is very simple: We are buying the goods and services from other countries, we're putting them to work, and in return they're not buying an equal amount of our goods and services. Instead, they're lending us the money to buy their goods and services, buying our assets, not creating any jobs in the United States by buying our assets, making inequality in this country higher and higher, and driving us deeper and deeper into debt.That's how we end up with an $11 trillion cumulative trade debt. $11 trillion! Every man, woman, and child in this country already owes $35,000 apiece to foreigners, and these deals would make that worse. TH: For decades, conservatives have been hysterical about the budget deficit. This is not the budget deficit you're referring to, it's the trade deficit. It's the difference between what we bring in from selling things versus what we put out buying things. Can you talk a little bit about exactly why we should be concerned about the trade deficit, and why is it that most Americans don't even know that there is a trade deficit, much less one that last month, for example, was $50 billion? REP. GRAYSON: Well, the government deficit is money that we owe to ourselves. For the most part, the holders of government debt are Americans. So, if we needed to pay off the debt, we could do that. If we were willing to raise taxes, we could pay off the debt very quickly. We were heading in that direction under the Clinton Administration. We were only 8 years away under the Clinton Administration from paying off all the federal debt. The trade debt, the trade deficit, is entirely different. That's not money we owe to ourselves. That is 100% money that we owe to people and businesses in other countries, even governments in other countries. And the result of that is that we can't tax ourselves to pay that off. All we can do is hope that they don't ask for their money back. And we're talking about half a trillion dollars every year. In fact, the 14 largest trade deficits in the history of the human race are our 14 last trade deficits, going back during the last 14 years. It's a half a trillion dollars a year, over a billion dollars a day, and cumulatively now over $11 trillion. And it all started with NAFTA. Before NAFTA went into effect, in 200 years of our history, we never had a trade deficit of $135 billion in any year. Every single year since NAFTA has gone into effect, for over 20 years, we've had a trade deficit of over $135 billion. And one [deficit] causes the other. Because when you take that money out of our economy, when you take that money out of buying our goods and services, the government has to step in and make up the difference; otherwise, our economy collapses. The reason why we have a federal deficit is because we have a trade deficit. TH: Wow. And it's astonishing to me that this conversation never happens on the Sunday [news] shows, it never happens in the mainstream media, and the vast majority of Americans don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the trade deficit, as opposed to the federal deficit. It's astonishing. Mitch McConnell recently said that the reason why he's pushing so hard for TPA, for Fast-Track, was not specifically for the TPP, for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or what I call "SHAFTA," the Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement, but that it's because it's a six-year authorization, and he fully expects that the next President will be a Republican. And that Republican President, for the first four years of his presidency, assuming he or she is elected to more than one term, would be able to push through all kinds of "trade deals," all over the place. Shouldn't that really be front-and-center? Again, that seems like something that most Americans don't know, that Mitch McConnell even said it, much less that that's how the Republicans are thinking. REP. GRAYSON: Well, that may be true, but look, there's been a bi-partisan "shafting" of the American public. The initial trade deal, NAFTA, was something that was passed under a Democratic President. And we've had more of these passed under Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents alike. In fact, there's a unity among our elites in this country. They'll do whatever they need to do to help multinational corporations increase their profits, even if it means giving away our sovereignty.That seems to be the one thing that Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days. "Let's placate, let's appease, let's give more power to the multinational corporations through these trade deals, and to hell with America." TH: Yeah. Last week we had 13 Democrats go along with the Republicans for Fast-Track in the Senate. REP. GRAYSON: And they switched [sides] to do that! TH: Right. REP. GRAYSON: They switched! TH: Right - right! REP. GRAYSON: It's the classic case of "I was against it before I was for it." And it will dog them for the rest of their days. TH: Right. And I think they switched [their votes] the day after the big train crash, and so most people don't even know about it. Again, it didn't get covered by cable news. So, anyhow, that's where it's at in the Senate right now. Where's Fast-Track in the House? REP. GRAYSON: Fast-Track in the House is waiting for Fast-Track in the Senate. Everybody agreed the Senate would go first. In fact, when Fast-Track was originally introduced, which was in the last Congress, the 113th Congress, it [was introduced in] the Senate, and was dormant for two years. Now it's being pushed forward, because the TPP, the TTIP, these other deals behind it are almost ready. So now they need to push Fast-Track through. The original plan was to wait for the "lame duck" session [last year], but they weren't ready for that, so now they're going to jam it through right now, as best as they can. And this means coming down hard, hard, on anybody who wants to maintain our labor base, our labor standards; protect our environmental laws, our safety laws; [so that they can] make sure, instead, that multinational corporations get every single thing they want. TH: Right. And you can learn all about it at TradeTreachery.com. And there's also an interesting website for conservatives, it's called ObamaTrade.com, and it's the Conservative argument against it. The hard-right argument, let's say. Yesterday, the World Trade Organization ruled that our United States country of origin labels on meat violate global "free trade" standards. First, I'm curious if you're familiar with the ruling. REP. GRAYSON: Yes. TH: And if you could comment on it. And secondly, is this the sort of thing that we can expect more of under TPP? REP. GRAYSON: It'll be that, and worse. Basically, what we're doing is that we're setting up -- and this is according to published reports; I'm not giving out any secret or confidential information, this is on WikiLeaks -- we're setting up a secret tribunal before the World Bank, and another secret tribunal before the United Nations. Both of these tribunals will be able to issue enforceable awards, arbitration awards or judgements, against not just our federal government, but also our state governments, our county governments, and our municipal governments. And they can do so whenever a corporation believes that its right, it's God-given right, to profit, has been impaired -- by a safety regulation, a health regulation, an environmental regulation, or simply a labeling regulation, like the one that you described. TH: Yeah, it's absolutely astonishing. TradeTreachery.com, you've got to check it out. And watch the video that Congressman Grayson put together. It is brilliant. Congressman Alan Grayson, you are such a light in Congress. Thank you for being with us tonight. REP. GRAYSON: Thank you, Thom. Yes, if you haven't seen our Trade Treachery video, then check it out, by clicking here. And whether or not you've seen it, help us get out the word on it, and fight back against trade treachery, by contributing to our "Truth in Trade" Fund today. Over 1,000,000 people have watched the Trade Treachery video on Facebook already; with a little bit of help from you, we can double that. Help us spread the word.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Final Senate Vote on Fast Track Today

It's Now or Never

 Final Senate Vote on Fast Track Today


Dear Friend: 

A week ago last Tuesday, the Senate voted against taking up the "Fast Track" trade giveaway bill. Hooray! Every Republican expressed support, but every Democrat except Sen. Carper (D-DE) voted against it. 

But just two days later, 13 Democrats switched sides. They were against it, before they were for it. 

What happened during those forty-eight hours? Well, an awful lot of corporate lobbyists billed an awful lot of hours. But the official explanation was that Mitch McConnell had agreed to a separate vote on a currency manipulation bill. Which may never pass the Senate. And may never come to a vote in the House. And may never pass the House. And may never be signed by the President. And if all those things somehow do come to pass, it can join the utterly ineffective existing laws against currency manipulation. 

But that was the cover story for those 13 switched votes. 

And yesterday, on another Senate vote, 13 Democrats wandered off the reservation. As a public service, I am providing their phone numbers, e-mail addresses and office addresses below. 

Q. If we don't stick together, then how can we possibly win? 

A. We can't. 

There's one last Senate vote today. Tell them "NO" on Fast Track! Call or e-mail - right now. Below is a list of every Senate Democrat who voted to let Fast Track steamroll over us. Pick one, pick them all, and MAKE THEM LISTEN. 

Courage, 

Rep. Alan Grayson 

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)
Class III
261 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5852
Contact: www.bennet.senate.gov/contact/ 

Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
Class I
511 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Contact: www.cantwell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-maria 

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
Class I
513 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Contact: carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-senator-carper 

Coons, Christopher A. - (D - DE)
Class II
127A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
Contact: www.coons.senate.gov/contact/ 

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
Class I
331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Contact: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me 

Heitkamp, Heidi - (D - ND)
Class I
110 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Contact: www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact 

Kaine, Tim - (D - VA)
Class I
388 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Contact: www.kaine.senate.gov/contact 

McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO)
Class I
730 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Contact: www.mccaskill.senate.gov/contact 

Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
Class III
154 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Contact: www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme 

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
Class I
716 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Contact: www.billnelson.senate.gov/contact-bill 

Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH)
Class II
506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
Contact: www.shaheen.senate.gov/contact/ 

Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA)
Class II
475 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2023
Contact: www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact 

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)
Class III
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Contact: www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/ 



The TRUTH will set you FREE.

President Adopts Grayson Amendment Against Police Militarization

Not in Our Neighborhoods Dear Friend,  Yesterday, President Obama acted to restrict the Defense Department and other federal agencies from providing military equipment to local police departments. In essence, the President adopted, by Executive Order, the Grayson Amendment that I introduced last year in the House of Representatives. My amendment was defeated, but shortly thereafter, we all saw militarized police occupy the streets in Ferguson, Missouri. Live and learn. I thank the President for adopting my amendment. It will help us take a giant step back from the militarization of Main Street, and let us remain the Land of the Free, as well as the Home of the Brave.  Ferguson made the difference, changing attitudes and changing minds. Who can forget what it looked like to see an American community occupied by paramilitary police forces, in military vehicles, pointing military weapons at innocent Americans? It looked like a nightmare. And the fact that in Ferguson, it was a largely white police force deploying military weapons against a largely black community made it even worse.  Our Founding Fathers were concerned about militarized police. The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the quartering of troops in people's homes. From the very beginning, we have established and maintained a clear line between police and military forces. In the 1870's the Posse Comitatus Act confirmed the fundamental principle that our armed forces operate outside of our borders, and the police operate within.  The result has been peace and security, in the lives of ordinary Americans. Apart from the Japanese occupation of part of the remote Aleutian Islands in Alaska during World War II, no foreign forces have occupied this country since the War of 1812, when British soldiers burned my present workplace, the Capitol, to the ground. The two-century absence of military forces from our streets is an enormous accomplishment that few other countries have matched. It's the foundation of American prosperity, and a fundamental tenet of our freedom. We live in peace, and therefore we can do great things. That's America. Having a military or paramilitary presence in our streets is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.  The militarization of American police is recent. The Section 1033 Program authorizes the free transfer of military equipment, including tanks, missiles, machine guns and weaponized drones, both new and used, to local police forces. For many years, it was tiny. In 1990, the DoD gave only $1 million in military equipment to local police authorities. In 2013, the amount was almost $450 million.  The mission of our police is to serve and protect, not unnerve and disrespect. We have a delicate balance in the United States between public authority and individual rights. Every time that we occupy a neighborhood with military force, not only are we attacking those who threaten mischief, but also those who are innocent.  Whenever we militarize the police, we run the risk of igniting a spiral of violence between the police and the populace. In a sense, it has already started. Last year, police officers killed 623 Americans. Contrast that with the United Kingdom, where in the last 10 years, officers killed only 20 people - even in the aftermath of the civil war in Northern Ireland.  Demilitarization will make police officers safer as well. Police officers have told me that the friction between them and the general public makes their job very difficult. Some of them have stopped wearing clothes or insignia that identify them as officers when they are off-duty. By presenting a friendly face toward the innocent public, the police can turn to them for help, and at the same time, feel safer themselves.  The President has taken a solid first step toward unwinding the cycle of violence. But the underlying program that the President has throttled back still exists. The Department of Defense still has the legal authority to buy and deliver military equipment to police forces. What one President stops, another one can re-start.  I'll be introducing my amendment again this year, and I'm hoping for wide, bipartisan support. If freedom means anything, it means that our streets are not war zones.  Courage,  Rep. Alan Grayson

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

TPP... A giveaway to multinational corporations, millionaires and billionaires

Evil Is as Evil Does Dear Friend: Recently, I was on national TV with host Thom Hartmann, trying to offer some kind of explanation why Congress would even consider committing Constitutional hari-kari under the proposed "Fast Track" legislation. Here's how it went: HARTMANN: While President Obama's is out defending the Trans-Pacific Partnership, members of his own party are making their voices heard over the latest so-called "free trade" deal. A number of progressive lawmakers, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, are asking for the full text of the TPP to be released, so that Americans can judge for themselves whether it's a really good deal for America. So is it time to take the secrecy cloak off of the TPP, and make it public, so that "We, the People" can see all of its gory details? Let's ask Congressman Alan Grayson representing Florida's 9th Congressional District. Congressman Grayson, welcome back. GRAYSON: Thank you, Thom. HARTMANN: Great to have you with us. First let me play a clip of President Obama on the Chris Matthews show the other day. Check this out: OBAMA: Everything I do has been focused on, "how do we make sure the middle class is getting a fair deal?" Now, I would not be doing this trade deal if I did not think it was good for the middle class. And when you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into the facts, they are wrong. HARTMANN: Your reactions and comments? GRAYSON: The President is wrong. In fact, he is so far off-base that right now, if we had a vote on TPP or on "Fast Track," his own party would be 10 to 1 against him. It's a giveaway to corporate America. It's a giveaway to multinational corporations, millionaires and billionaires. And specifically, it's the death knell of the middle class in America. The President is so far off-base that it's ridiculous. And he should have realized that, during his State of the Union Speech. During the State of the Union Speech, about 50 times, Democrats got up and applauded when he was talking about everything else. And then when he was talking about this issue, only Republicans stood up to applaud the President. That would have been some type of tip-off, back in January. And yet here it is [three months later], and the President is singing the same sad song. Let's face the facts. Since NAFTA, the first of these major, mega-trade deals that went into effect, since NAFTA went into effect, we've lost five million manufacturing jobs, and roughly 15 million other jobs. The resulting trade deficit means that we've gone $11 trillion into debt. That's $35,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. What are we going to do, when the Japanese and the Chinese and the other foreign countries say, 'Okay, now we want our money back'? And we lose twice over. Because what's been happening in these trade deals, over and over again, is not that they're buying the same amount of goods from us that we're buying from them. They're not buying the same amount of services that we're buying from them. What's happening is very simple: We're putting their people to work by buying their goods and services, and they're buying our assets, not generating any new employment in this country at all. We lose twice. We lose the jobs, and we're driven deeper and deeper into debt, to the point where already one-seventh of all the assets in America are foreign owned. And it's getting worse. It's getting worse to the tune of one billion dollars a day. HARTMANN: Wow. Now legislatively what we're looking at here are actually two different pieces of legislation, which do quite different things. The one most people are familiar with, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I call it the Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement, or SHAFTA. That's one of the pieces. Okay, the TPP, SHAFTA, what's in that? But then there's this thing called "Fast Track," where Congress votes to give up its own ability to debate and amend legislation. Can you explain the logic of that? GRAYSON: It's a constitutional form of hari-kari. What we're seeing here is unconstitutional violations of the oath of office that we took at the beginning of this term. We have a constitutional duty to look over, to debate, to inquire, to do oversight, to amend. And all that is taken away from us [under Fast Track]. What the President's asking us, both the Senate and House, to do, is to give up on hearings. No hearings on any of these trade deals. To give up on subcommittee and committee and floor amendments. And to give us each in the House, 88 seconds, -- 88 seconds, Thom! -- to debate these trade bills before we have to vote them up or down. It's absurd. We don't do it for defense matters. We don't do it for tax matters. We don't do it for healthcare. We don't do for anything else except for this. And why is that? Because multinational corporations slip into these trade deals provisions for their own benefit, that would never under any circumstances pass the House or the Senate and be signed into law. HARTMANN: Wow. Where did Fast Track come from? . . . I don't understand the process. GRAYSON: Well, both the trade deals themselves, and the fast-track procedure to deal with trade deals, are unconstitutional. The trade deals are unconstitutional because they are treaties. And the [proponents] go way out of their way to avoid using the term "treaties." But what is a treaty? It's an agreement that you make with another country. By definition, these are treaties. And under the Constitution, they require a two-thirds vote in the Senate. They know they'd never get a two-thirds vote for any of this stuff. It's hard enough to get 50 percent, plus one. So they call them a "trade agreement" instead of a "treaty," to avoid the Constitutional provision that goes back 200 years, that requires a two-thirds Senate vote. In addition to that, we get "Fast Track." Fast Track is taking away our constitutional prerogatives, which under the Constitution, legislation cannot do. Under the Constitution, the House and Senate set their own rules, by their own discretion, unilaterally. So what this legislation purports to do is tie our hands as an institution, which under the Constitution, we can't do. HARTMANN: Now when you start speaking about the Constitution, Congressman Grayson, most of the people who wave that thing around a lot and treat it as holy writ are conservative Republicans. How are they reacting to Fast Track, to setting aside their own constitutional power? I mean they were hysterical about, you know, giving up any power or sovereignty when we joined the UN for example. Where are they on this? GRAYSON: Well, the first cut for the Republicans is, "what does the Chamber of Commerce want?" Andthe Chamber of Commerce wants this so, so badly. This is their number-one legislative priority, and it's been that way for several years. Because they realize this is the way to get what they want, without having to bother with debate, with oversight, with hearings, with mark-ups, with amendments and so on. Just get it all at once, in one nice neat package -- everything they want. One of the other things they want is to set up courts outside the U.S. court system, which can result in judgments against not only the federal government, but also state governments, county governments, and municipal governments, which are enforceable judgments. And these judgments can be handed out for arbitration panels that are operated by the United Nations and the World Bank. So we are surrendering our sovereignty to the United Nations and the World Bank. You can bet that some of the Tea Party fanatics have picked up on this already, and some of the Republicans are starting to feel the heat. What I'm hearing from the other side -- and I talk to them quite frequently -- is that there's already roughly 60 [GOP] votes in the House against this, because they realize that we are giving away our hard-fought, hard-won sovereignty, in exchange for nothing. HARTMANN: Wow. In the last half a minute or so here, Congressman, how do you see this playing out? GRAYSON: I think that the Senate may or may not vote in favor of it. I'm pretty sure the leaders in House will never let it come to a vote, because Boehner has been telling Democrats that if there aren't 50 Democrats in favor of it, then he's not going to bring it to the Floor. Right now, they'd be hard-pressed to come up with 15 Democrats in favor of it, much less 50. So it may never come to a vote in the House, just like it didn't last term. And if it does come to a vote, there's a very good chance that it will be defeated, as it should be. This is nonsense. Let's try to solve our trade deficit problem, and instead of figuring out creative ways to add to it, and dig a deeper and deeper hole for ourselves. HARTMANN: Amen. Congressman Alan Grayson. Great to have you with us. Thank you for dropping by. GRAYSON: Thank you, Thom. If we want to defeat this "death knell for the middle class," then we have to fight back, and fight back now, before it's too late. To see the video, or to support our "Truth in Trade" campaign, click right here. Courage, Rep. Alan Grayson

The TRUTH will set you FREE.