“The Coach” loses one . . . but he and his are certainly certainly not out of the game
The Babylon Bee takes on the vapidity of sports commentators and the underpinnings of the abortion culture in one great piece. Hat tip to Ted Cruz for promoting the insightful satire.
This will start a group of irregular posts /reposts commentaries of note regarding the Friday’s Dobbs decision overturning the Roe /Doe/ Casey jurisprudence. We will endeavor to pick and link some of the best on point that we come across and of course welcome referrals from readers as well. Other subjects will of course be addressed. This one is from a Twitchy post. The title is a bit optimistic as the proaborts are very imaginative.
twitchy.comJun 27, 2022, 03:00 PMOnce again we are proud to bring you a thread we don’t have to say much about. ‘Trader Jill’ does an exceptional job of debunking the Left’s talking points and narrative around abortion and Roe … not that they’ll take the time to read her thread and learn a thing or two from it.
But at least you can take this info with you, dear reader, and combat the stupid out there.
Take a gander.
Listen up you silly liberals, because here is the truth about SCOTUS overturning Roe V Wade:
1. No “most” Americans DO NOT support abortion up until the moment of birth – In fact it’s only 12% that do. 57% believe abortion should be banned as soon as a heartbeat is detected.
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
They’re just absolutely uninformed about what overturning Roe really does.
And no, most Americans do not support abortion up to the moment of birth.
2) Less than 1% of all abortions are the result of rape and incest, so stop acting like it’s an epidemic.
3)Pro-life Christians are not the ones that brought this to SCOTUS, but rather an abortion clinic trying to overturn the states law banning it after 15 weeks. Oops!
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
15 weeks was too LIMITING for an abortion clinic.
Think about that for a minute.
THEY started it.
4.Abortion is not a Constitutional right. There is no mechanism in the document to address it; thus, it always belonged at the state level, so the will of the people prevails as intended.
5. No state has any plans to outlaw it if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
Gosh, all of those little talking points are just getting nuked.
6. Justice Samuel Alito explicitly wrote that, “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” such as contraception and gay marriage. Crisis actors are ginning up the crowd with lies to believe otherwise.
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
Lots and lots of deflection and distractions out there. The ones insisting overturning Roe will keep women going through an ectopic pregnancy from getting care are some of the most obnoxious.
7. Pro-life people are not all religious. You don’t need to believe in God to believe in the sanctity of life. Yet another lie.
8. Your contraceptives are in no danger of being taken away, and the morning after pill, or Plan B is still widely available over the counter.
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
Yeah, pro-aborts keep screeching about the Catholic Church when in reality, there are lots and lots and lots of people who are pro-life simply because they are humane.
9. There are over 16 different types of birth control, and most doctors will tell you to double up regardless of the 99% efficacy rate, just as a precaution.
10. STD’s are still a thing, so if you’re not getting your partner tested/using condoms, then you are at great risk.
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
YOU are responsible for your reproduction, so let’s stop pretending you magically fall on the D against your will.
Teach your daughters how to be responsible, and stop looking at abortion as a method of birth control. “Safe, legal and RARE”, remember that trope? Yeah, me too.
— 🚛TraderJill (Pronouns: Meme Queen/Your Highness) (@LadyJustice6910) June 27, 2022
Amen amen and another amen.
And no, hater who might be reading this just to hate, we’re not being religious.
Ok, maybe a little. HALLELUJAH.
***
OK — Trump and many conservatives can arguably contend that the “most electable” candidate is Trump. Certainly the turnout at Trump led rallies is impressive. Indeed they must be heady events for the guy on stage if he perceives the attendance and enthusiasm as personal adulation.
Oh to be sure there is a lot of that and deservedly so directed at Trump. But I look at the rallies as something more akin to a cause not a man and that is the reason for the attendance. I think most of those in attendance would agree, although Trumps rock star status is a huge draw. It needs to be internalized that MAGA is not about Trump and it is doomed to be a flash of American history if it is largely dependent on him or his personalty, rock star that it is.
We in Iowa have to be more discerning than that. We are first in the nation for the Republican caucus/primary system and discerning/comparing the leadership, policy and communication traits of the contenders, starting now frankly, is an important contribution to the body politic.
Why is it too much to expect a MAGA candidate to be bold in policy (radical as in returning to roots), to surround himself (herself) with good people, to take the fight to the enemy, to be clever (as wise as the serpents), able to avoid unnecessary drama and animosity (humor is good in a Reaganesque mode), to lead with authority and articulation while making the effort always about America.
Trump had a good track record and deserves great appreciation for doing what he said he would do. In one very important matter to a fault – pushing an experimental vaccine.
In spite of shortcomings one can point to instances of great merit in all of the categories but also serious predictable unnecessary problematic instances. Personnel judgement is a big one — being rather easily flattered, not knowing well enough people he brought in to key positions, not understanding the nature of the swamp. Overdoing superficial friends and family. We can recognize Don Jr as a serious asset. Ivanka and Jarred not so much, and if he had to bring them in for some reason well that is an issue.
Some might argue that Trump purposely created diversions with his “mean tweets” and necessarily used them to get around leftist media going directly and frequently to the people. One might examine the content with that in mind but there are diversions and then there are diversions. There are workarounds and then there are workarounds.
Frankly I think a DeSantis is a better candidate going forward from what I have seen in those categories and there are others as well — Cruz has largely redeemed himself with me (if I can forgive a flyer from Trump I can do so for him as well). More in coming posts.
Writing at Townhall Kurt Schlichter’s column yesterday was the part one of his analysis regarding who the GOP should nominate for the 2024 presidential race. He uses a pro and con analysis centered on Trump. The first commentary was the pro-Trump one with the “not Trump” to follow Thursday. We commend the article to you: The Case for Donald Trump 2024. We also embellish it with this insightful video presentation by a Brit pointing to certain virtues of Trump.
The video commentary above is compelling. We would only offer that while Trump is a unique personality a conservative alternative who quickly demonstrates assertivness can produce the same reluctance in malcontents.
The parameters of my comments on this question include that it is likely that the Democrats will not be able to field a comparative strong candidate because Biden is making “Democrat” a bad name (it always was here at V’PAC). That assumption on my part is important to the calculus of getting the best conservative able to achieve the most in one term to undo the damage the Biden residency is causing. The gist of my contention is that Trump is not likely the only Republican able to beat a Democrat and indeed he might be the biggest problem should he win the nomination. That depends on women voters in the general a majority of whom still may be anybody but Trump, so give them that but one who shares MAGA policies.
Some might argue that Trump’s personality apart from his assertive MAGA policies which are at least quasi-populist, drives his support. Maybe for some, but I find much of it can be fatiguing and unnecessarily distracting. All of us prefer his so called mean tweets to Democrat disastrous policies, actual culture rot and diminution of the country, but is that trip necessary, his way that is, when aggressive, clearer on point, in your face communications are possible from other politicians? A major concern I have with Trump is that I do not think he has gotten his personnel picking problems solved, reflected in a number of his endorsement picks in the midterm primaries. The extent of his serious mistakes in that regard resulted in much of the problems he faced.
Any alternative to Trump needs to support a rooted out federal bureaucracy and support a Justice Department that will prosecute identifiable election fraud of 2020. A new Republican House can take the lead in uncovering by hearings and pursuing prompt changes rectifying Democrat policy atrocities and installing preventatives for future congresses and administrations including proposing power limiting Constitutional Amendments as appropriate. Electing Trump the third time in 2024 is not the only way to vindicate election 2020. Drama can be good — the inspirational effective/affective non-distracting kind.
On Friday the Iowa Supreme Court reversed its relatively recent abortion-anytime-for -any-reason ruling as a fundamental right
This being Black History Month – we hope more Black babies (Brown, White and rainbow as well) will have more history as a result of the Iowa Supreme Court decision
The legislative implications of the decision are still indeterminate – but clearly abortion regulation can no longer be facially challenged. In overturning a previous extravagantly pro-abortion analysis of the Iowa Constitution the court has corrected itself to instill that what has been the case since Iowa’s statehood (and before as a territory) that there is not a fundamental right to abortion at any time for any reason in Iowa. Pro-abortion state judges will not to be able to get away with strict scrutiny analysis presuming abortion as a fundamental right thus bar any meaningful regulation. That is a glorious improvement. However — what remains to be seen is what is the approved analysis as regards abortion regulation — “undue burden” or “rational basis”
The later should be the controlling analysis and with the underpinning that the state has a rational basis for protecting unborn children. Properly understood the undue burden analysis (a generally undependable jurisprudence) because it cannot rely now on a fundamental right to destroy one’s offspring in utero, ought to also allow for legislation protective of the unborn and women’s health.
A powerful opinion in many ways Iowa’s Supreme Court in its 5 to 2 decision (6 to 1 on some aspects) issued Friday has also devastated pro-abortion arguments about the history of abortion regulation in Iowa and provided compelling arguments about the matter of stare decisis that pro-aborts have used to protect the Roe /Doe /Casey jurisprudence.
This article at National Right to Life News by long-time pro-life journalist Dave Andrusko provides a good initial summary of what the Iowa Supreme Court determined. We will have more to say in coming posts about what legislative regulations might and ought to be allowed assuming SCOTUS takes Roe down in coming days.
Iowa Supreme Court says no right to abortion in state constitution, reversing its own 2018 decision
By Dave Andrusko
In a 182 page opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled this morning “that the state’s constitution does not include a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion, reviving a law requiring women to wait 24 hours after an initial appointment before getting an abortion,” Reuters reported.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Edward M. Mansfield said the previous ruling that established a constitutional right to an abortion “insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake and we must disagree with the views of today’s dissent that ‘[t]he state does not have a legitimate interest in protecting potential life before viability’.”
In the 2018 ruling, written by Chief Justice Mark Cady and overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court today, the court said that “autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.”
In 2020 Iowa’s pro-life Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the 24-hour waiting period. As the Iowa Supreme Court noted, “On June 23, 2020, before HF594 was actually signed into law, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and its medical director, Dr. Jill Meadows, filed a petition in Johnson County District Court challenging the 24-hour waiting period.”
Justice Mansfield observed, in explaining why stare decisis principles don’t weigh heavily in favor of retaining the 2018 ruling, that
PPH II [the 2018 decision] was overtly based on the notion of a “living” constitution…. To the extent PPH II viewed constitutional interpretation as an evolutionary process rather than a search for fixed meaning, it is hard now to argue that the evolutionary process had to end as soon as PPH II was decided. Does the Iowa Constitution get to “live” until 2018, at which point it must stop living?
For her part, Gov. Reynolds applauded the court’s decision.
“Today’s ruling is a significant victory in our fight to protect the unborn,” she said. “The Iowa Supreme Court reversed its earlier 2018 decision, which made Iowa the most abortion-friendly state in the country. Every life is sacred and should be protected, and as long as I’m governor that is exactly what I will do.”
The Iowa justices said they “are not blind to the fact that an important abortion case is now pending in the United States Supreme Court,” a reference to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
“While we zealously guard our ability to interpret the Iowa Constitution independently of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Federal Constitution, the opinion (or opinions) in that case may provide insights that we are currently lacking,” today’s ruling said. “Hence, all we hold today is that the Iowa Constitution is not the source of a fundamental right to an abortion necessitating a strict scrutiny standard of review for regulations affecting that right.”
With today’s ruling, the waiting period case was returned to the district court.
Excuse me officer, we’re here as part of the “siege”
Check out these photos from the usual biased media sources used to illustrate their story about the felony conviction of two people parading in the halls of the Capitol on Jan.6, 2021. Do you see what we see?
At the mostly peaceful and patriotic January 6 2021 rally for election integrity a small percentage of protestors regrettably did what a category of Democrats do all the time — made spectacles of themselves with some goofy and destructive antics — and maybe some even got pushy in response to some of the police (other police may have been accommodating if not rather blase’ as in “another DC protest , different day, different group” and no more a serious threat even to the extent – “that would be down the hall to your right”.
The Jan. 6 protestors were not like another frequent category of leftist protestors who engage in widespread looting, extensive hateful damage to property, who fire bomb and carry weapons going into houses of democracy aka protest sites.
According to the left, sauntering is besieging or something. By the way is that a guard under the portrait frozen in fear by the very presence of such a flag.
Nothing more was apparently on the agenda for even the most aggressive than has been attempted by countless leftist cause adherents protesting in the Capitol galleries or at other venues trying to disrupt proceedings at least for a time. Yes some arguably wanted to disrupt, but that is not insurrection – an armed takeover of government. It is absurd to refer to those inside the Capitol and steps and walks that day as such. Most of the January 6 protestors who were arrested limited themselves to making noise on the steps or in the halls. Yet they have been subjected to gross violations of their rights. No one has been accused of bringing a gun or a bomb into the Capitol to shoot members of congress or bomb the place. That is what insurrections do.
The only ones with definitive weapons in the Capitol that day were police, one of whom used his to kill an unarmed diminutive woman of no threat to him while he hazarded others in the line of fire. No other police with similar or closer vantage point felt any threat necessitating lethal force from that woman. Although there were maybe the few cops who may have ganged up on another woman outside and beat her when she lay dying, such an obvious threat presented.
One question, if it were a rainbow flag would there have been a felony conviction?
The first article Trump Needs to Alter His Message on COVID is sorely needed if he wants any enthusiasm from this quarter towards a primary run. Just stop it Donald — do you know who your base is really . Your support at this stage is a lot of desperation in the face of Biden. As it stands now I hope DeSantis runs. He is a good candidate and a better politician (in the good sense of the word). I would go further than the article. I think Trump needs to decry that he was mislead and that he endorses investigation into the unethical aspects to the whole tragedy/fiasco/scam and that he would make a lot of changes were h to be elected the third time.
The same advice in the article should be sent to Chuck Grassley by the way. Being a “me too” in support of the public health creeps endorsing the vaccine and masking is not a compelling message even if he is opposed to mandates (so is Trump). The admonition for the general public to take the jab as a great public health benefit (it is not) feeds the surreptitious control freaks and their methodologies in government and thesupposedly private sector. Advocate real vaccines and treatments rather than experimental problematic manipulations.
The second article They Are Not Sending Their Best is smack on. There definitely needs to be a better evidenced understanding of American freedoms and their origin and purpose especially from the “elite” immigrants who apparently come here for the money more than anything. Their prescriptions will turn this country into the hell holes they left. The common laborer sort of immigrant probably has a more authentic appreciation of American freedoms and rights than the elites mentioned in the article.
By the way — We will have some comments regarding the RPI State Convention Saturday after the finished platform and sources for insightful comments by attendees are checked.
As this is written the 2020 Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) state convention is about to convene. I was without delegate status this year because I chaired a precinct caucus not my own at the request of the local Chair due to the shortage of operatives. So while I attended the caucuses I was in effect disqualified from delegate status (I really presume it was a misunderstanding and not the intent) because I was not in my own caucus even though the tables were in the same room. So be it, rules are rules.
I attended the county and district conventions as an observer and facilitated platform resolutions going into the caucuses (see V’PAC postings from the period) including a successful amendment to the platform at the later by circulating the appropriate paperwork and arguments. That is how I know at least one of the matters I refer to herein was addressed downstream. Making the trip to Des Moines with Biden gas costs, food costs in part driven by farm acreage devoted to inefficient ethanol production, the ugliness of wind farms along the way and other factors — weighed more heavily than the practicality of helping organize appropriate amendments (to a pretty could state platform) in the face of the frustrating by design amendment process.
With todays technology and appropriate discipline there is no reason the platforms with amendments (including district conventions) could not be essentially settled (with improved timeliness) as to content prior to the conventions. The conventions could then be more reliably structured as to time allowing more for presentations by candidates for party office and winners of the concluded primaries. The overall process should still be representative and disciplined.
Platform development is what makes the caucus system unique, truly grassroots. Without that feature the caucuses are just a clumsy primary in Presidential years because the other feature, election of county central committee is actually emphasized as a perfunctory function of electioneering activities focused on the general election — volunteer efforts from people who could volunteer anyway.
Hopefully others a little more conveniently positioned will take up the cause this morning on these and any other appropriate amendments. Here are a couple of things I think heavy on the minds of the rank and file that should be addressed.
The BIG question I have is why have the powers that be sh*t-canned specifically addressing the fraudulent acts affecting the electoral college in the 2020 election at least calling for investigations and the issue of the influence CTCL — the Zuckerberg money scandal. Why is the platform so shy on those matters? OK I think I know why — could it be because Iowa’s Republican federal delegation rubber-stamped the election without even calling for hearings while accepting the Biden residency in spite of extensive evidence, gargantuan anomalies, and profound questions without raising them whether or not they felt compelled to do the rubber-stamping? The ruination we are facing started without a whimper or a constitutional fight from them at that key time.
While the Republican chief election officer Paul Pate has implemented some important election security features (fine, praise him for that) not addressed is that Pate encouraged counties to apply for grants from CTCL knowing or incredibly indifferent to the pedigree of the grantors. The grants were obviously a Democrat GOTV effort under color of official county activity, amplified by tax money, and freeing up Democrat resources for the worst they could perpetuate.
One quick aside, I believe the platform is generally good, even profound in some areas but the idea of not being more pointed is a weakness, the sort of thing that helps make platforms dismissible as exercises in platitude writing. The proposal has (actually longstanding over the years as approved) hornbook conservative proscriptions “against distortions of the free market through subsidies bailouts and mandates” [See Commerce at (1)]. Also one stating , “oppose all government mandates and efforts associated with alleged man-made global warming or climate change” [See Commerce at (4)] And what do the Republican powers that be in and out of Iowa do about this — propose and vote for mandates for ethanol marketing, tax breaks for E15, tax favors for wind (which according to the main owner of such makes no sense other than for the subsidies and green mandates).
If the platform is not more pointed, more demanding “incentivizing” through the party process, the party is easily ignored and the “do nothing” disgust held by many toward it sticks.One might at a close reading offer that Government @17 covers “Zuckerberg money” — First of all how pathetic a rendering but even at that if it is intended to cover it, it is mistakingly written. The rendering “private interference in US elections” ought not be an issue. People privately, publicly advocating that is not “interference’ that is what elections are about. Zuckerberg can spend all he wants doing his own thing “interfering” as a PAC or 501 -C-4 or C-3 or however. It is inducing officials and offices to do his bidding that is the issue. Receiving and executing such grants through neutral public offices is the issue.
This post may be revised or extended as the day goes on
Biggest primary surprise for us — (we thought Democrat primary voters would ignore Finkenauer’s petition problem) was the substantial win by ADMIRAL (oh they will play that to the hilt) Michael (or is it Al) Franken. You need to take a gander at this guy’s Twitter posts. He is one thoroughly leftist nasty SOB – snide at every turn – like Tom Harkin. He emphasizes abortion on demand and ending the filibuster, government takeover of medical care, gun control and he is all for LBGTQWTXYZ rights. Oh and did you know he was an Admiral in the Navy (surface ship).
In previous elections all of Chuck Grassley’s Senate opponents in our estimation have pretty much taken it easy on him, — it was not good politics to denigrate “farmer” Grassley, certainly the senator from Big Ag in an Ag state. Instead they left much of that to their associates while they all played to their constituencies and were trounced. Grassley’s opponents just didn’t have the issues, the horsepower, the down-home appeal, incumbency, and they all had their far left liberal credentials to haunt them.
Iowa’s other long serving Senator, largely a contemporary of Grassley was Democrat Tom Harkin. He was a vile lying snide creature in reality but never was in an election with good old Chuck. They were colleagues for the good of Iowa don’t you know. And Chuck, the 70% Senator, didn’t seem to help much in the attempts to get him out. Chuck would come back to Iowa, Harkin would go to the Bahamas, but they were both reelected continuously. Go figure.
Well the Democrats now have a Harkin to go against Grassley. This will not be pretty. Franken has promised so. To be sure some of Grassley’s factors still pertain and hopefully his faculties. Franken can be exposed as the far leftist he is. It should be a Republican year but never underestimate the power of Republican establishment (and Chuck is all of that) to misread key things, such as general public resentment over politicians.
What is Grassley’s gambit — so determined to hold onto office for likely his forever.
Readers are aware we believe in term limits. Particularly at the federal level — the further away the service, the more the need. The body politic needs such a rule because as it stands now incumbency is so overwhelming and as such breeds corruption if not in the elected and reelected officials, in the way things are done in Washington.
The country realized that and applied its concerns as regards the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. But the scope of it is limited to the presidency and we suspect jealousy got the matter through the Congress and to the people . . . but heaven forbid they would include themselves even though the same concerns ought to apply.
Washington based power is intoxicating, indeed so much so it will even cause people to fly back to Iowa once a week or a month, whatever — the politics of insuring their actual residency in Washington. Such is the sacrifice of some members of the political class. That town causes otherwise sensible people to believe they are indispensable or something. It is in the water.
Few are immune enough to retire at the top of their game. (or maybe laying the groundwork for most favorable conditions for a dynasty takes more time in individual circumstances).
For G*d sakes, in this or any state either other people with similar or more astute philosophy of government can do the job or the addicted politician in his many years of service has done little (successfully) to improve or stabilize the political lot . . . to strengthen the bench. Some might scoff – what politician ever seeks to strengthen the bench! It is a fair scoff — but one that points to why term limits never seem to happen.
We understand that there are objections to term limits but also that they are answered effectively by the organization US Term Limits. Term limits are as appropriate (in different ways) as minimum age and residency requirements. Those are traditional most everywhere in the U.S. and term limits are becoming traditional as regards state office. They are even more important at the federal level. It is elitist or rather pathetic and not conservative to oppose them.
The usual rejoinder to calls for term limits is that elections are term limit decisions . . . that there ought to be the freedom to call on anyone to represent you. Sounds rather fundamental so one would think the RINOs and elements of Libertarians who parrot those views would be calling for repeal of the 22nd Amendment and the fundamental right to vote for the 16 year-old genius they are aware of . . . wherever they might live.
OK so I hold to advocating for term limits but at least as strongly I hold to the view that Democrats in spite of convenient noise they make to decry long serving Republicans, Democrats would be the least likely to implement them. They are even more captured by the bureaucracies, ideological and otherwise in DC that oppose them because those bureaucracies have more control and seniority without term limits. No shaking up their applecart.
And when a Republican is up against a Democrat whatever the stated positions on term limits, well the positions and ideologies of Democrat party are so harmful, so evil in some areas that combined with their untrustworthiness I still opt for the Republican, and so it will be after today. To be sure the entrenched political class from our party counts on that — which is why the primary is the place to implement them.
And so for such reason among others I support Carlin over Chuck Grassley in the primary. Carlin is at least as conservative, give and take, as Grassley (it is silly to think a big government conservative like Grassley is pure ideologically). And Grassley has exhibited some serious affronts to conservatism and has unnecessarily given legitimacy to the economic and cultural debacle we are experiencing under the Biden residency. Below are some links to articles that are supportive of Carlin / critical of Grassley. They should be widely considered.
Grassley says we should have equal interest in the border with Mexico and between Ukraine and Russia (pardon me but this documented statement by Grassley does not even seem sentient)
Said Grassley: “I’m saying I would not—we’re not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”
Grassley is for Sale: Which Means So Are You.
Deace: It’s time for Charles Grassley to go. Vote Jim Carlin for U.S. Senate.
The following are articles here at V’PAC that sort off chronicle problems with Grassley of late
Pence certainly no clutch player, nor is Grassley
Two Republicans taking on Miller-Meeks and Grassley in Republican Primary
Trump should have let Grassley stew in his juices awhile
Meet Senator Grassley’s good friend BIF
Grassley to run again – on that decision thanks for nothing
Chuck Grassley has helped make Joe Manchin the man of the hour
Audio of Sen. Grassley at Lincoln Club event in Davenport
Grassley out to convince people that Dems and Repubs are not all that different
Chuck Grassley votes for racist unconstitutional “infrastructure” bill
Is this the Grassley view: In order to make a ham omelet — need to break a few eggs
We wonder if Grassley, Ernst, Feenstra, Miller-Meeks and Hinson agree
Grassley votes to facilitate trillion-dollar infrastructure package
Grassley and company exemplify a cause of mental health sequelae from pandemic terror
Will Senators Grassley and Ernst apologize for parroting lies and spin about Jan 6th
Senator Grassley’s prayer works wonders
