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 )

Welfare King!

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.

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.

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

Most 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 column 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)?

Grassley Death Panel

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.

Watch:

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.

The 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 here -http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/
And for a look at what successful healthcare reform looks like from a health care professional (pharmacist) read this - http://bit.ly/9QLV8

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!!!

Grassley 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 economy”:

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.

Listen:

“Many 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 insurance, 43 percent of adults with chronic conditions nevertheless had access problems because of cost.

Senators Get 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 thing."

Conrad didn't miss a beat. "She did, she said you were the biggest hit of all the speakers at the event," he replied.

"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, the 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 studies 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 earmark $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.