Adding Insult To Injury -- Literally

9/11 Responders To Be Warned They Will Be Screened By FBI's Terrorism Watch List 

The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.
Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.

It doesn't even make sense. If you got sick or injured trying to rescue people from 9/11, who suspects that you might secretly be a terrorist?

The provision was added in an amendment added by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) during the heated debate over the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last May. 

So who the hell is Cliff Stearns?



Well, he's pretty much who you'd think he'd be.

 (via On The Issues)

On Civil Rights:

• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
• Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) 

 The Pledge of Allegiance thing sounded weird to me. I didn't realize it needed protection. According to "On the Issues" this refers to the "Pledge Protection Act"

Pledge Protection Act: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.

I don't know why wingnuts can't grasp the whole "separation of powers" thing. Why do they always think that they can tell the courts what they can and can't review?

On the Environment:

• Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
• Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
• Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
• Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
• Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) [WTF?]
• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)  
• Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
• Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
• Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
• Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)

On Homeland Security:

• Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) 

Because if we can't use warrantless wiretaps, how will we find out which cops and firefighters are secret terrorists?