With their newfound majorities in both houses of Congress, Republicans are holding the budget of the Department of Homeland Security–and the safety of their fellow Americans–hostage.
Amidst all this turmoil, it’s easy to forget another Republican outrage that happened five years ago: The slander they cast on the patriotism of the tens of thousands of police, firefighters, construction workers and others who risked their lives to save their fellow Americans on 9/11.
The World Trade Center on September 11, 2001
This “gift” was sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and eagerly supported by other Republicans in the House and Senate.
Rep. Cliff Stearns
The responders were informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s database of suspected terrorists. Otherwise, they would be denied treatment for their numerous, worsening ailments.
In 2010–nine years after the worst terrorist attack in American history–Congress passed the Democratically-sponsored James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Act.
The law was named for a New York City detective who died of a respiratory disease in 2006 after his contact with toxic chemicals at Ground Zero.
The law authorized $1.8 billion to be spent over five years to treat injuries of police, firefighters, emergency workers, construction and cleanup crews caused by exposure to toxic dust and debris at the site.
From the outset, Republicans bitterly opposed the legislation. They argued that providing healthcare for ailing September 11 heroes would bankrupt the nation.
Of course, they hadn’t voiced such concerns when President George W. Bush needlessly launched the nation into a $1 trillion war against Iraq in 2003.
For Republicans, the heroes of 9/11 had become “welfare-seeking bums.” If they couldn’t afford their own medical care, so what?
Republicans slandered the proposal as a new “entitlement program,” like Medicare. They demanded that the responders return to Congress every year to make their case, claiming this would prevent fraud and waste.
“If this issue is so credible based on the results of September 11, we shouldn’t be afraid of going through the (budget) authorization process and fight for the spending bill,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
Republicans forced Democrats to accept an amendment that deliberately cast a slur on the men and women who answered their country’s call in its supreme moment of agony. Only then was the legislation passed.
The amendment read: “No individual who is on the terrorist watch list maintained by the Department of Homeland Security shall qualify as a screening-eligible WTC survivor or a certified-eligible WTC survivor.
“Before determining any individual to be a screening-eligible WTC survivor…or certifying any individual as a certified eligible survivor….the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall determine whether the individual is on such list.”
The amendment provoked outrage among non-politicians, Democrats and even some Republicans. Among these:
- Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) whose district encompassed Ground Zero, said it was “absurd” to consider that any of the 9/11 heroes would be terrorists. He added that the screenings were a “waste of money.”
- Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called the exercise “shameful” and “a waste of time,” adding: “It put a cloud over extraordinarily good people for no reason.”
- “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart noted that the federal government didn’t run background checks on any other group of people receiving financial benefits. These included Social Security recipients, Medicare patients and even Wall Street bankers bailed out during the recession.
Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, advised doctors and hospital administrators to begin letting patients know before the new program took effect in July, 2011.
Specifically, patients seeking help under 9/11 treatment and monitoring programs were told that their
- names
- birthplaces
- addresses
- government ID numbers
- and other personal data
would be provided to the FBI to prove they were not terrorists.
Firefighters rescuing victims at the World Trade Center
Howard’s instructions to medical providers included a sample letter to responders designed to minimize alarm:
“Although neither we nor [the Centers for Disease Control]/NIOSH anticipate the name of any individual in the current Programs will be on the list, CDC/NIOSH is expressly required by law to implement this particular requirement of the Act.
“Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to working with you and ensuring that you continue to receive uninterrupted services under the new WTC Health Program,” it concluded.
By August, 2011, the FBI had screened some 60,000 emergency responders to the attacks on the World Trade Center and had not uncovered any suspected terrorists. To date, no matchups have occurred between known terrorists and those seeking treatment.
Glen Kline, a former NYPD emergency services officer, best summed up the disgrace of these background checks: “This is absurd. It’s silly. It’s stupid. It’s asinine. I mean, who are we even talking about–the undocumented workers who cleaned the office buildings?
“We know who all the cops, firefighters and construction workers were. They’re all documented. Is the idea that a terrorist stayed to help clean up? And then stayed all these years to try and get benefits?”
Thus, self-righteous Right-wing legislators–who never lifted a beam from a trapped 9/11 survivor or inhaled toxic fumes that spewed from the crater that was once the World Trade Center–now stood in judgment over those who did.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2014 ELECTIONS, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ANDREW JOHNSON, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CIVIL WAR, CNN, EDWIN STANTON, FACEBOOK, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, IMPEACHMENT, JASON CHAFFETZ, MITCH MCCONNELL, NBC NEWS, RECONSTRUCTION, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S. SENATE, USA TODAY
ILLEGAL ALIENS = UNRELIABLE ALLIES
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 26, 2015 at 3:07 pmSome Republicans–like Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah–want their new majorities in the House and Senate to make “producing legislation” a top priority.
But others will soon make the impeachment of President Barack Obama their top priority.
Here’s how it will happen.
“We now have the votes and we have the ability to call the agenda, so stop name-calling and let’s actually produce some legislation that helps jobs and the economy and moves our country forward,” Chaffetz said in an interview after Republicans captured the U.S. Senate on November 4, 2014.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz
“I think the country has figured that out, and they’ve given us the mandate to do it, and we better produce, or they’ll kick us out too.”
Obama has vowed to act unilaterally before year’s end to reduce the number of deportations and grant work permits to millions of illegal aliens living in the United States.
After promising to take executive action on immigration by the end of the summer of 2014, Obama delayed his plans until after the elections. Democrats–especially Senators from conservative states–had warned him that such administrative moves could threaten their reelection.
Illegal aliens crossing American borders by the millions
But on November 4, most of those Democrats lost anyway, leaving immigration advocates–and their millions of illegal alien constituents–feeling that the delay was needless.
“What I’m not going to do is just wait,” the president said as immigration legislation that the Senate passed in June 2013 remained stalled in the House.
Kentucky’s U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell–who became Senate Majority Leader in January–warned that this would be an in-your-face affront to the new majority GOP:
Mitch McConnell
“I think the president choosing to do a lot of things unilaterally on immigration would be a big mistake,” McConnell said. “It’s an issue that most of my members want to address legislatively and it’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull to say, ‘If you guys don’t do what I want, I’m going to do it on my own.’ …
“I hope he won’t do that because I do think it poisons the well for the opportunity to address a very important domestic issue.”
To which Obama responded: “I have no doubt that there will be some Republicans who are angered or frustrated by any executive action that I may take.
“Those are folks, I just have to say, who are also deeply opposed to immigration reform in any form and blocked the House from being able to pass a bipartisan bill.”
Barack Obama
Republicans could use spending bills to restrict or stop such executive action, by cutting appropriations to those agencies that would be tasked with carrying out Obama’s directives on immigration.
Several Republicans hold the deep-seated view that Obama already has been abusing his constitutional authority.
“Abuse of power” is an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution. So making this assertion would provide Republicans with the weapon they’ve long sought to drive Obama from the White House.
Republicans, in fact, have a tainted history of using impeachment to remove a President who dared to thwart their agenda.
After the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, Republican President Andrew Johnson tried to carry out Lincoln’s humane policies to reunify the nation after the Civil War.
He issued a series of proclamations directing the former Confederate states to hold conventions and elections to re-form their civil governments. In response, Southern states returned many of their old leaders, and passed Black Codes to deprive freed slaves of many civil liberties.
Andrew Johnson
Congress refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congress overrode him, setting a pattern until he left the White House in 1869.
As the conflict grew between the executive and legislative branches of government, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, restricting Johnson in firing Cabinet officials. Johnson then tried to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton–with whom he had an antagonistic relationship.
An enraged Congress impeached Johnson in the House of Representatives. He avoided conviction and removal from office in the Senate–by one vote.
If President Obama tries to end-run Congress on immigration policy, history will likely repeat itself with another round of impeachment hearings.
It was Mitch McConnell who infamously vowed–immediately after Obama’s election in 2008–to make him “a one-term President.”
Moreover, there is actually no reason for Obama to risk his Presidency by granting the privileges of American citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.
Democrats–and especially Obama–had counted on millions of illegal aliens to retain Democratic control of the Senate. But those masses of Hispanic voters never showed up at the polls, thus giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress.
If Obama practiced ruthless “Chicago politics” as charged by his enemies, his response would be: “You [illegal aliens] didn’t live up to your end. Therefore, I have no further responsibility to you.”
Unfortunately for the President, he seems unable to break with his past of backing unpopular causes for little in return.
Share this: