|We will leave it up
to the reader to determine whether Chuck Grassley has made serious errors in
in judgment and is a liar. Chuck has supported a Conservative
Christian position especially when it comes to Church and State issues.
But, it is apparent from the data collected, that the first amendment may be
in danger from his past and future actions.
Chuck Grassley's office like others we called, stated that his position is
that Moslems, Hindus, Shintoists and Witches do not follow "Real"
religions" and in fact are evil cults. What is a real religion, Mr.
Grassley? What you have been practicing? Read the following and
remember: "By their Works may they be known." This is a summary of
information collected from several sources about Chuck Grassley.
(Remember it is best to
investigate on your own when looking at allegations about anyone.
Don't believe us, think for yourself and investigate for yourself! And
remember, the First Amendment Coalition does not represent any political
party nor do we recommend any political candidate, nor are we involving
ourselves in the political process. This information is only for
students of Chuck Grassley )
Excerpted from an article by Yasha Levine on truthdig.com on
Dec 22, 2009
Chuck Grassley, the longtime
Republican senator from Iowa who warns his constituents of Obama’s “trend
toward socialism,” has seen his family collect $1 million in federal
handouts over an 11-year period, with Grassley’s son receiving $699,248 and
the senator himself pocketing $238,974. Even Grassley’s grandson is learning
to ride through life on training wheels,
snagging $5,964 in
2005 and $2,363 in 2006. In the Grassley family they learn early how to
enjoy other people’s money.
Sen. Grassley railed against government
intervention in the health care market, telling The Washington Times,
“Whenever the government does more ... that’s a movement toward socialism.”
As the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he ought to know,
especially because the government has done more for him and his kin than for
Americans struggling with high medical bills and mortgages. Even the
free-market think tank the Heritage Foundation criticized Grassley on his
deep connections to farming interests and his stubborn lack of transparency.
Almost immediately after
President Obama’s recess appointment of Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau Richard Cordray ended the Senate GOP’s
lawless effort to
shut down that agency by filibustering anyone appointed to lead it,
those same senators started spouting
false claims that
the president’s actions were unconstitutional. Earlier this week,
however, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley suggested that he may go
even further, retaliating against Obama by escalating the Senate GOP’s
unprecedentedly aggressive campaign of obstruction
against the president’s nominees:
Grassley, the top
Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today he prefers
first seeking some Senate Democrats to join in a public pushback to
Obama’s four recess appointments Jan. 4, including the installation
of Richard Cordray as the new director of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. Short of that,
Grassley said, Republicans may have to go it alone with tough
actions that could include holding up pending nominations from a
Senate confirmation vote.
“We have got to stand our
ground,” Grassley said in an interview. “You can’t let a president
who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution go around the
Constitution. That’s what the checks and balances are.”
Let’s be absolutely clear
about what is going on here. Grassley is mad at President Obama, but his
retaliation will not really hurt President Obama. Obama lives in a very
nice house and enjoys a fine life regardless of whether the Treasury
Department has an Undersecretary for Domestic Finance or whether the
federal courts have an adequate slate of judges. The people who will be
hurt by Grassley’s tantrum are the millions of consumers who depend on
functioning federal agencies to safeguard their rights, the workers who
depend on workplace safety and fair wage laws in order to provide for
them families, and the thousands of litigants who wait months or years
for justice in a judiciary
burdened by far too many vacancies.
wrong on the facts
when he claims that Obama’s actions are the least bit unconstitutional,
but everyone makes factually mistakes and such errors can be forgiven.
What is unforgivable is Grassley’s willingness to punish millions of
innocent bystanders simply to exact some kind of revenge against
Senator Grassley is Putting
the Republican Party Before the American Citizen on Health Care!
As the important health care debate in
Congress moves forward, certain members of the Senate insist on moving
backwards. One of those Senators is my friend and constituent, Chuck
Grassley used scare tactics last week at a
town hall meeting in Iowa to convince voters that optional coverage for
end-of-life counseling in the House health care reform bill would force
people to "pull the plug on grandma" (even though he supported a nearly
identical end-of-life counseling provision in a 2003). Earlier this week,
Grassley told reporters that even if a health care plan included the changes
he's been pushing for, he likely wouldn't support it if it didn't attract
the support of more than a few of his GOP colleagues. Today, the
Washington Post reported that Senator Grassley has begun calling for
"scaled back" health care reform.
For someone who claims he wants to help
forge a bipartisan health care plan, Senator Grassley sure isn't acting very
bipartisan. In fact, he's been behaving like someone who wants to see
meaningful health care reform defeated.
During his nearly thirty years serving in
the Senate, Senator Grassley has earned a reputation as a "straight shooter"
-- someone who has been willing to take on powerful special interests even
when his party has supported those special interests. He's also been someone
who may disagree with with you on policy, but has not resorted to playing
loose with the facts to fit his point of view.
That's why his recent behavior has been so
disappointing. He should know that real leadership in Congress means putting
the facts before fiction (no matter how difficult that might be), finding
common ground, and persuading your colleagues to do the right thing.
Grassley certainly didn't ignore the facts when he pushed the Pentagon to
cut wasteful defense programs. He certainly put facts before the Bush
administration's fiction when he stood up against reckless tax cuts for
millionaires and broke with his party to support increased funding for
children's health insurance.
So when Chuck Grassley stands up in front
of a crowd of anxious Iowa seniors and pushes a myth about the federal
government "pulling the plug on Grandma" that's been debunked by dozens of
media outlets and fact-check groups (even Republican Senator Johnny Isakson
of Georgia called the claim "nuts"), when he questions the health care
reform legislation's "motivations," you've got to wonder what's changed
about his motivations.
Senator Grassley is in a stronger position
than just about anyone to bring Republicans on board with Democrats to
achieve the health care reform we need. But when he uses the same rhetoric
as pundits advising Republicans to "just kill it" and a Republican Senator
who wants to make health care President Obama's "Waterloo," why would the
President or Senator Baucus think he is their ally in achieving meaningful
health care reform?
Sadly, it appears that Senator Grassley has
decided to put his party before what's best for the people of this country.
The Pressure on Chuck Grassley
of the commentary on Chuck Grassley's truculence and back-pedaling has
focused on his potential primary challenge and fear of the Iowa electorate.
But that's not terribly convincing: According to Survey USA, Grassley has a
62 percent approval rating, and that lifts to 69 percent among Republicans.
He's a five-time senator with a serious machine. How scared can he be?
The more plausible argument is that
Grassley fears his fellow Republican senators. I'm hearing that Grassley is
getting reamed out in meetings with his colleagues. The yelling is loud
enough that staffers in adjacent offices have heard snippets. But the real
threat isn't the yelling of his colleagues. It's their capacity to deny
Grassley his next job. Ruth Marcus hints at this in her
on Chuck Grassley today, but it's worth explaining in a bit more detail.
This is the final year that Grassley is
eligible to serve as ranking member — the most powerful minority member,
and, if Republicans retake the Senate, the chairman — of the Senate Finance
Committee. His hope is to move over as ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, or failing that, the Budget Committee. But for that, he needs the
support of his fellow Republicans. And if he undercuts them on health-care
reform, they will yank that support. It's much the same play they ran
against Arlen Specter a couple of years back, threatening to deny him his
chairmanship of — again — the Judiciary Committee. It worked then, and
there's no reason to think it won't work now.
Grassley Voted For So-Called
"Death Panel" In 2003!!!!!!
Excerpted from the a Huffington Post
article by Rachel Weiner Posted: 08-14-09
Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan pointed out
last night that, for all of his ardent demagoguery on the so-called "death
panels," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
voted for just such a provision in 2003.
Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription
drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members
and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for?
Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
So either Republicans were for death
panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about
end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their
fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which
is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?
Reps. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Thaddeus
McCotter (R-Mich.), who both claimed end-of-life consultations could result
in "government encouraged euthanasia,"
also voted for similar policy in 2003.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) tried to call
Grassley on Friday and tell him he was wrong about health care reform.
He got the senator's voicemail.
Now Grassley Lies and Endorses "Death
Panel" Rumor: "You Have Every Right To Fear"
AP Photo/Steve Pope
Sen. Charles Grassley,
R-Iowa, answers a question from Sheryl Prather during a town hall on
healthcare reform Wednesday in Adel, Iowa.
I've said this before: It's
getting past time for President Obama to spell out specifics about which
healthcare reform plan he supports, given the five House and Senate bills and
umpteen other proposals circling Washington. And unfortunately for Obama's
dreams of bipartisanism, it's way past time for him to give up his hopes that he
can bring "sensible" Republicans on board with a smart, fair bill.
I've suspected that was true for a
while, but today is the day to, well, pull the plug on that project.
Unbelievably, one GOP senator who's been held up as a paragon of reason and
bipartisan comity, Iowa's Chuck Grassley -- one of three Republicans negotiating
with three Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee -- trashed Obama's plan
today in terms that went beyond Sarah Palin's ignorant rant. (I debated Tony
Blankley about this on "Hardball"; video at the end of this post.)
"There is some fear because in the
House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life," Grassley told a town hall
crowd. "And from that standpoint, you have every right to fear. You shouldn't
have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before
you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don't have any
problem with things like living wills. But they ought to be done within the
family. We should not have a government program that determines if you're going
to pull the plug on grandma."
"You have every right to
fear." What a statesman! Where to start? There are at least five
different healthcare reform bills vying for support, and their many provisions
can be confusing, but there is not one sentence in any of the five that
mandates either "death panels" or "pulling the plug on grandma" -- and Chuck
Grassley knows that much much better than I do.
Let's try to take Grassley at face
value: that he truly believes end-of-life counseling should take place earlier
than the end of life (supposed "liberals" like Lee Siegel and Chuck Lane,
cosseted Beltway softies like Grassley, say they agree). Perhaps Chuck and Chuck
and Lee were prepared to gather with their team of lawyers, doctors, wives,
children and accountants in, say, their 50s or even 60s (rich people live
longer, surprise!) to decide on end-of-life/living-will questions. But many
families don't have those resources, and they understandably don't get to those
questions until they're unfortunately all too pressing and relevant.
It's wonderful that Medicare would
pay for such consultations for people without the means to do it earlier under
most plans Obama supports. And it's beyond cruel and shameful that a service
meant to empower a low- to middle-income Grandma or Grandpa who didn't make
prior plans is now being depicted as pulling the plug on her, or him. Grassley
and his elitist buddies, liberal or conservative, should be deeply ashamed.
To me the silver lining here is
that maybe Obama and Democratic leaders will wake up and realize they have no
partners in the GOP on healthcare reform. (Well, that may be too precipitous --
Olympia Snowe? Susan Collins? Please?) Unbelievably, roughly 24 hours before
Grassley -- call him Judas -- sold out Obama for 30 pieces of silver from his
insurance industry backers, the president named Grassley as one of the reason he
continues to negotiate with Republicans, at yesterday's town hall.
I admire Obama's desire for
conversation, consultation and, if possible, bipartisan support for his agenda.
But it's been clear since early in his term that the GOP marching orders are to
thwart him whenever possible. I didn't really think Chuck Grassley would craft a
healthcare bill more palatable to me, but I thought possibly he'd help Obama get
a bill that would attract some Republican support.
I never cease to amaze myself by
my naiveté and unwarranted optimism. I think it's time for Obama to use his
political capital to whip the Democrats, including the nippy, yippy selfish and
untested Blue Dogs, into shape. If he compromises with the likes of Chuck
Grassley after Grassley betrayed him, he can give up the rest of his agenda --
and maybe even a second term. But I trust Obama to know that he's been punked by
Grassley, and to act accordingly.
In making his remarks, Grassley
becomes the latest in a string of GOP lawmakers to jump on a myth and lie about
the health care legislation produced by the House of Representatives. The most
infamous statement was made last week by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who
declared that the President's health care plan
would set up a "death panel" to determine whether or not to euthanize her son
with Down Syndrome. This was of course an outrageous lie.
Iowa Independent was the first to report Grassley's remarks. The Huffington
Post was able to obtain audio from an attendee at the event.
On Wednesday, White House Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs hit back at Palin for her death panel remark, saying that
the former governor had given out "information that I think many of you all
pointed out was wrong." The House bill would require Medicare to cover voluntary
consultations between individuals and their doctors about end of life care,
including whether or not to write a living will. Several Republican lawmakers
have endorsed the idea in past legislation.
It's utterly amazing at how these
Republicans lie outlandishly. The house bill doesn't say anything about
euthanasia or pulling the plug. It simply states that a individual may ask a
doctor for help in understanding how to draw out a will or what pain medications
are available to those in chronic pain with a terminal illness or an explanation
of what hospice is. It says NOTHING about government making the decision
themselves and I reiterate that it is 100% VOLUNTARY. Get the facts about it
And for a look at what successful healthcare reform looks like from a health
care professional (pharmacist) read this -
At present there is an "optional"
benefit of end of life planning. Basically, people on Medicare pay for that now
out of pocket because unless you are terminally ill, then there is no benefit
coverage. At present do you know that attorneys are drafting the Living
Wills and gives people boxes to check what they want and what they do not want.
Problem is - ATTORNEYS ARE NOT DOCTORS AND FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT DOCTORS. Who
better to advise a patient as to what a certain provision or choice means in
their Living Wills than a Doctor???
The hysteria over this provision is unbelieveable. Currently, health care
insurance companies are making the decisions of who lives or dies. Insurance
Companies have their own death panels - committees and doctors in place that are
making decisions on who is getting care or life saving treatment. This is
already effecting 56% of Americans that have health insurance! If they want to
keep their private insurance (and the corporate death panel), so be it. But what
about the 44+% of uninsured Americans? At least the panel that decides benefit
levels will have some citizen representation on it. You do not get that with the
current Health Insurance Death Panels!!!
Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has taken the lead role in
negotiating the health care reform bill for the GOP. But earlier today
during a radio interview with Iowa City’s KCJJ, Grassley steered the
conversation with a caller toward rationing health care services among the
elderly, one of the right wing’s
favorite fearmongering tactics when it comes to health care reform. And as
an example, Grassley cited Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) brain tumor. Grassley said
that in countries with government-run health care, Kennedy “would not get the
care he gets here because of his age.” Instead, the government would decide to
spend health care resources on younger people “who can contribute to the
GRASSLEY: In countries that have
government-run health care, just to give you an example, I’ve been told that the
brain tumor that Sen. Kennedy has — because he’s 77 years old — would not be
treated the way it’s treated in the United States. In other words, he would not
get the care he gets here because of his age. In other words, they’d say ‘well
he doesn’t have long to live even if he lived another four to five years.’
They’d say ‘well, we gotta spend money on people who can contribute more to
economy.’ It’s a little like people saying when somebody gets to be 85 their
life is worth less than when they were 35 and you pull the tubes on them.
Americans are under the delusion that we have ‘the best health care system
in the world,’” wrote the New York Times editorial page in 2007, but “the
disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in
delivering timely and effective care.” Among developed countries, the United
States has the
10th highest death rate among cancer patients, higher than Spain and Sweden.
But the larger problem Grassley
ignores is cost. For Kennedy, access to health care is not an issue. Among most
Americans, however, staggering health costs prevent
more than half of U.S. patients from gaining access to medical care. Last
year, 38 percent of U.S. patients did not receive recommended treatment compared
to 11 percent in Canada and 6 percent in the U.K. And even among Americans with
43 percent of adults with chronic conditions nevertheless had access
problems because of cost.
Nasty: "You're Good" ... "Your Wife Said The Same Thing" (VIDEO) by Ryan Grim,
Huffington Post March 27, 2009
Marking up budget legislation can
be a brutal affair, often beginning early and lasting long into the night.
But buried within the hours of
debate in the Senate on Thursday is an exchange you'd be more likely to hear in
a locker room than a congressional hearing.
Budget Committee Chairman Kent
Conrad (D-N.D.) was on the receiving end of this one, after telling Sen. Charles
Grassley (R-Iowa), "Oh, you are good."
"Well, your wife said the same
thing," Grassley responded.
The back-and-forth came after
Grassley, the ranking Republican on the finance committee, pressed Conrad to
include an amendment of his. "I'd like to suggest to the chairman that he might
want to support this because, you remember, you asked me two years ago not to
take a vote on it and you said if we did take a vote on it you might not get
your budget resolution adopted. So I did not ask for a vote on it and you said
it was a very statesmanlike thing for me to do at that particular time and so I
would hope that you would return the favor," said Grassley.
"You know, I used to like you. Let
me just say: Oh, you are good," said Conrad.
"Well, your wife said the same
Conrad didn't miss a beat. "She
did, she said you were the biggest hit of all the speakers at the event," he
"Okay," said Grassley.
An audience member can then be
heard calling out something that sounds like, "What she say?!"
Watch it, courtesy of the C-SPAN Video Library:
Manufacturing a "Scandal" at
the Legal Services Corporation.
Those few lawmakers who just don't
like the Legal Services Corporation, the nation's provider of civil legal aid to
the poor, are at it again. They've leaked a report that grudgingly concludes
that Helaine Barnett, LSC's president, made an unintentional mistake
when responding to Congressional inquiries and tried to spin it into a story
about abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Read past the headlines of this
AP story and see how notwithstanding valiant attempts, LSC's Inspector
General, Kirt West, could not find any evidence that Barnett intentionally
misled Congress when she answered questions about travel expenses for a trip to
Ireland. At issue was a first-class flight to Ireland for a conference which Ms.
Barnett believed had been obtained via a frequent flyer upgrade. The IG
determined that the upgrade occurred only after a series of cancellations and
rebookings that cost the agency about $1049. After learning of the added costs,
AP story says, Ms. Barnett corrected her statements to Congress and
reimbursed the agency.
Barnett, a respected, career legal
aid attorney and administrator, has received high marks from veteran legal aid
providers for her leadership. And the IG himself found
no evidence that she knowingly misled Congress in any way. So why are
Barnett and LSC under fire?
Some critics simply don't like the
idea that in a country that promises equal justice for all, the federal
government might make some small effort to deliver on that promise.
Notwithstanding the important work that LSC does -- preventing seniors from
losing their homes, helping victims of domestic violence obtain protection,
obtaining benefits for disabled children -- most
estimate that 80 percent of the civil legal needs of low-income people still go
unmet due to inadequate government funding.
Yet, despite this continued crisis
in our courts, LSC critics such as Charles
Grassley (R-IA), persist in searching for any
opportunity to destabilize the agency. It's particularly ironic to read him
inveighing against Ms. Barnett's $1000 mistake -- all of which was repaid and
cost the taxpayer not a penny -- when just last year he himself attempted to
$50 million to bring a man-made rainforest to Iowa. A better use of
everyone's time -- and investigative zeal -- would be pry into why millions of
Americans who desperately need legal help in the land of equal justice are
unable to get it.