By now, most have you have seen or heard the maniacal Anthony Weiner rant from last night. Carol, of No Sheeples Here, wants people to know the real story behind the defeat of H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010.
It must be understood that Democrats pursued a procedural tack that required two thirds of the House to prevail enabling Republicans to defeat the bill that would pay up to $7.4 billion in aid to people sickened by toxic dust from the World Trade Center. Weiner’s rant doesn’t do anyone any good—least of all to the party that controls the legislative and executive branches of government.
Here’s her video A Sad Day For The Congress That Will Live In Infamy:
Earlier today, Sean Hannity had Weiner and King on his show, and fireworks erupted again – video at The Right Scoop: Sean Hannity goes nuclear and destroys Anthony Weiner.
HotAirPundit has Rush’s response to the imbroglio: Rush Responds To Congressman Anthony Weiner Losing It on the House Floor.
MORE:
Steve Malzberg exposes Rep. Anthony Weiner on First Responders Bill:
These Dems are such scum. They care nothing about the victims of 9/11. All they care about is raw power. How to achieve it, and how to keep it.
Nice Deb 
This evening Mark Levin verbally kicked Wiener in the wiener on this too. Wiener’s a slimy guy, drawing negative attention while lying to decent Americans. Hannity tried to get him to promise that he would NEVER vote for a bill he hadn’t read, and Wiener refused to agree to it. Kept trying to find fault with Hannity and draw him into some sort of deal. Slime.
LikeLike
Deb,
Thanks for posting my video and linking back to NSH.
Have a great weekend.
LikeLike
Deb, the Malzberg audio is excellent. I’ve linked you in my latest post on this debacle.
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Pingback: A dialog echoed across this country… « VotingFemale
Deb, thanks for adding the Malzberg explanation.
Dude took his time and it’s good.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. I was actually looking for the Levin clip you mentioned, but saw that, and liked it.
I certainly hope Republicans are ready for the demagoguery that’s gonna hit them on this issue, this fall. They should have response ads already in the making.
LikeLike
Pingback: Peter King Anthony Weiner: The Real Story of the Failure of the James Zadroga Act « Daily News
Pingback: Marxism through Racism: Tea Party is not tainted; Communist Black Activists are tainted « VotingFemale
Pingback: ORLY?: Obama to GOP: ‘You can’t have the keys back!’ « Nice Deb
Wait, what? The *Democrats* care nothing about the victims of 9/11? Take a look at the actual vote breakdown on this bill. Leaving out the 18 representatives who abstained:
243 out of 255 Democrats voted FOR it. That’s 95%.
155 out of 159 Republicans voted AGAINST it. That’s 97%.
(Source: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/actions_votes)
Yes, the Democrats were cowardly in deciding to use a procedure that required a 2/3 majority so they could avoid a politically embarrassing situation. But the bill *would have gotten that 2/3 majority* if not for the fact that nearly every Republican voted *against* it.
LikeLike
I agree with Alex. It’s not the Dems fault there wasn’t a 2/3 majority. Republicans voted it down because they didn’t want to raise taxes (and by raise taxes, I mean close a long existing tax loophole for offshore corporations) and because they wanted to have a RIDICULOUS amendment making sure no healthcare was given to illegal immigrants.
So, if a man or woman risked their lives to pull other people out of the rubble, they are heroes, unless of course they are illegal immigrants, than they shouldn’t have been at Ground Zero in the first place. Complete rubbish.
But whatever, it came down to money, and the GOP wasn’t interested in paying for the healthcare of first responders.
Call it political posturing by the Dems if you want, and I won’t put up much of an argument, but still, I would have put such a bill on the suspension calendar because it would seem like a bill that would get overwhelming support from both parties.
LikeLike
After four years of dithering, the Dems rigged the vote so it would take a 2/3rds majority to pass it, instead of a simple majority. That way they could shut the Republicans from debate on the bill.
So, if a man or woman risked their lives to pull other people out of the rubble, they are heroes, unless of course they are illegal immigrants, than they shouldn’t have been at Ground Zero in the first place. Complete rubbish.
Rubbish? Dems have a huge majority, why would they care if Repubs offered any amendments? Because they didn’t want to be be on the record voting for payouts to illegals.
Closing the tax loophole means even higher unemployment…
Also, the bill didn’t do enough to police the funds to prevent it from becoming a huge slush fund. Dems refused to allow Republicans from adding an amendment to tie up loose ends and prevent it from becoming a wasteful boondoggle.
As always, Dems played politics with the lives of heroic people on the line, which is what they did for 8 years under Bush.
Dems suck, and the failure of this bill is their fault, and theirs alone.
LikeLike
Pingback: First Responders Bill = Still Sitting on Capitol Hill « Brucetheeconomist's Blog
If bill was defeated to deprive illegals of benefits with respect to it. That seems wrong to me. Even if someone is in the US illegally, but suffers from this terrorist attack through no fault of their own, why shouldn’t they be helped as the other victims are? Mr. Malzberg apparently doesn’t agree with and asserts most Americans would not.
LikeLike
Google “9/11 Nukes – Radiation-induced cancers”
LikeLike