Thursday, June 30, 2005

New Look

Please bear with us as we make some changes.

Quick Post - Re: King's letters to constituents.

Much more to add later but here are links to the letters the Newsday article was talking about.

Kings Letter March 1st page 1

Kings Letter March 1st page 2

Letter to King March 5th

King's Response March 10th

Response to King March 15th by a constituent. It is admittedly not very polite. It refutes what King said in his letter to a constituent.

King's Response #1 - Incomplete. Why? Who knows. It was sent this way.

King's Response #2 - Okay, so maybe that's all he wanted to write.

Response to King - Which was never acknowledged. Oh well.

KIng Gets a Spanking in Newsday Letter

King all wrong for security post

I was shocked to read on the editorial page that Newsday thinks that Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is the right man to be chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security ["The man for the job," Editorial, June 10]. In reaching this conclusion, someone at Newsday failed to do his or her homework.
From 1990 through 1999, the Coast Guard, a vital part of our homeland security program, transferred 79 percent of its personnel from our area to locations outside New York. When Governors Island was abandoned, we lost the services of 1,097 Coast Guard personnel and seven large cutters.
Today, there are only two cutters in the entire state. When the vital air station in Brooklyn was closed, we lost three helicopters and 89 flight and support personnel. And the Coast Guard compromised the safety of air travelers at JFK and LaGuardia airports by closing stations at Fort Totten and Rockaway.
It would seem that King, who claims homeland security is his top priority, was asleep at the wheel when the Coast Guard deserted New York. He also vigorously supported Bernard Kerik for director of homeland security, even after the disclosures by the press of Kerik's questionable activities.

John J. Tarpey Jr.

Friday, June 17, 2005

King Cares Little for Court Rulings

The religious right in the country is trying by hook or by crook to bring about a theocracy. From the Ten Commandments in public buildings to teaching Creationism as a science in the classroom, the divide between church and state is being torn asunder.
First lets talk about what the perception of the religious right is; the believe this country was founded as a "Judeo-Christian" nation. Now beofre I go further, it is worthy to point out that only recently have they called it "Judeo-Christian." Before it was just "Christian." Because the biblical apocalypse requires a re-built Temple in Jerusalem and a unified Israel, formerly jew-hating right-wingers have found a new love for Judaism. Of course it's just an ends to a means. The fact is that the founding fathers were Diests. On top of that, our laws were not "based on the Ten Commandments" as they would want you to believe.

Courts have been ruling across the country against displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings. And you would think Congress and King would respect the ruling. Even if they disagree with the ruling, you would expect them to go through the proper channels to appeal the rulings. Nope. King and his cronies passed Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) amendment to H.R.2862; Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce.
The Amendment H.AMDT.278; prohibits funds from being used to enforce the judgement of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the case of Russelburg v. Gibson County, decided January 31, 2005, concerning a display of a monument of the Ten Commandments.
How did King vote?
King Vote YES
---- AYES 242 ---
King (NY)
Everyone should be concerned that Congress is prohibiting the enforcement of a court ruling. This republican congress with King's acquiescence has been playing fast and loose with the courts, ignoring the seperation of powers.
King supported S. 686 which stripped the rulings of 12 Judges in the Terri Schaivo case and put congress in charge.
This is one more reason we need to get rid of King.

And who is King in bed with? What does the author of the amendment say about our courts?

"The judiciary ..., has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment ...'
"Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert that force and will."

Even the defendants in the case oppose what this amendment does.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

King Votes Against Freedom

A few months ago, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) introduced a bill H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act; To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to exempt bookstores and libraries from orders requiring the production of any tangible things for certain foreign intelligence investigations, and for other purposes.
Yesterday, in the House, Freedom prevailed when H.AMDT.280 an amendment to H.R.2862; 2006 Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce passed the House 238 - 187.
H.AMDT.280 (A033)
Amends: H.R.2862
Sponsor: Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] (offered 6/15/2005)
"An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."
The American Library Association hails the vote and encourages people to call their representative who voted for the amendment and thank them.

So how did King vote?
He voted NO.
---- NOES 187 ---
King (NY)

King voted against the freedom to go to the library or bookstore and know you can read whatever you want and the government cannot find out.

Check out Rep. Sanders site for more background on the freedom King wants to deny you.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

King fails to protect EEOC

The EEOC is in place to protect workers from discrimination. As usual, King votes against workers. It would be nice if the unions that support him pay attention to these kinds of votes.

H.AMDT.277 (A030)
Amends: H.R.2862
Sponsor: Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] (offered 6/15/2005)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to close or consolidate any office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or to make any reductions in the number of full-time officers or employees in any such office, or to reduce the number of full-time officers or employees serving as supervisors, management officials, mediators, examiners, investigators, or attorney in such office, as part of any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganizing of the Commission that is authorized under law.
6/15/2005 3:04pm:
Amendment (A030) offered by Mrs. Jones (OH).
6/15/2005 5:33pm:
On agreeing to the Jones (OH) amendment (A030) Failed by recorded vote: 201 - 222 (
Roll no. 256).

---- NOES 222 ---
King (NY)

King losing more support

Letter to Newsday 6/15/05

Getting off the Peter King Train

Is Peter King really "The man for the job" [Editorial, June 10]? Although it would be a good idea to have as the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security a person who has New York's interest at heart, Peter King is not he.
I base this statement on the fact of his endorsement of and his voting for the Bush administration's prescription-drug plan. If King can turn his back on his elderly constituents when it comes to choosing between corporate greed and eldercare, how can we think he would support the interests of New Yorkers in anything? I voted for him every time he ran because he hadn't sold the seniors of New York out yet. But because he has shown to whom his loyalty really lies, I can no longer back him.

D. R.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Another News Conference/Protest at King's office

Opponents of the Broadwater Liquefied Natural Gas project proposed for the Long Island Sound are urged to attend a news conference demonstration next Wednesday to show their dissatisfaction with Congressman Peter T. King's (R) approval of an addition to an energy bill that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington sole authority to approve Liquefied Natural Gas facilities.
If approved by the Senate and signed by the President, the House bill will give complete siting authority to FERC without local input. It is important that those of us concerned about this issue express to our elected officials that this is unacceptable. Long Islanders and New York State need their voices heard in the FERC review process.

The demonstration will be hosted by the Anti Broadwater Coaltion:
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: In front of Congressman King's office at1003 Park Blvd. Massapequa, NY 11762
Please spread the word! RSVPs can be made to Jennifer Hartnagel at
hartnagel@pinebarrens .org or call (631) 369-3300.

You can contact Congressman King's office at (516) 544-4225 to tell him your disappointment with his decision on this crucial issue.

Directions to Congressman King's office
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling East.Take Exit 28A (Seaford/Rt 135 South) Continue South on Rt 135 for approx. 3.5 miles and bear left onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 3.5 miles on Rt 27 and make a left onto Park Blvd.

From Southern State Parkway - Traveling WestTake Exit Rt 110 South (Amityville) Continue South on Rt110 for approx. 3 miles and bear right onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 2 miles on Rt 27 and make a right onto Park Blvd

Monday, June 06, 2005

Readers respond to LI Press Story

I forgot to post this.... go figure.

From the May 12, 2005 Issue

Long Island Press political writer Elizabeth Cady Brown's April 28 story, "Kingly Fashion," generated many letters reproaching Rep. Peter King (R-Massapequa) for comments he made on Cablevision's News 12 Long Island. He described In This Together Campaign (ITTC), the new multi-union coalition opposing Social Security overhaul, as "partisan hit men" and "wacko malcontents."

Dear Editor,
In my experience, it's the media, not constituents, who have "respected" King Peter's over-the-top remarks. I was ashamed for all of Long Island when King made disparaging and outright hostile comments last summer regarding the New Jersey women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks. So I'm not surprised that he called those of us who care about preserving Social Security "wacko malcontents." But he is right about one thing -- I'm definitely not content with my representation in Congress!

Dear Editor,
I am a constituent of Peter King's, and I have never been charmed by his rudeness. He says he only responds harshly when someone writes a harsh letter to him, but I haven't found this to be true. Whenever you disagree with his position and I disagree with almost everything he does he tends to be condescending at best. His stand on Social Security is just the latest indication of his contempt for the needs of his constituents. He couldn't be bothered to show up for a Town Hall meeting on the subject, but if he had, he might have learned something about how people in his district rely on Social Security. When I think of the heartrending stories I heard that night, King's dismissive comment that the people at that meeting were "wacko malcontents" makes me absolutely furious.

Dear Editor,
When anti-privatization activists rallied outside the offices of Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), the congressman emerged and engaged his constituents in a constructive dialogue. Compare this to Rep. Peter King, who greets opposing constituents with derision. That's why Peter King needs to be replaced.

Dear Editor,
Not all of King's responses are to "harsh" letters. When he called the police on constituents who wanted to speak to him, not a harsh word precipitated that. King called into question a letter writer's morality and intellectual abilities because the writer was urging King to censure Bush for lies regarding WMDs. No "harsh" words were directed at King. Peter King feels free to insult, belittle and lie because no one has called him on it. It's time someone did. The Social Security Town Hall meeting he was too afraid to attend was set up because King himself will not speak to his constituents on his own. Of course, King showed up at a union meeting, because he needs their money and support. Four hundred constituents don't mean very much when the unions can offer thousands of dollars and an endorsement. At that union meeting, they planned to ask the same questions on Social Security that the Town Hall meeting organizers and participants wanted to ask. Did King call the union members' patriotism into question? Did he call the union members "wacky malcontents?" Of course not. It goes back to endorsements and money. King is afraid of constituents who will question him and take him to task for his actions. He says he is not a "punching bag." Fair enough, but he works for us. He has an obligation to listen to his constituents. If he has to sit and take criticism, then that is what he has to do. That's part of the job. Unfortunately, his thin skin and lack of professionalism makes that difficult. The sad part is that unions still support King. He voted for the Bush budgets that have hurled us into historic deficits that will mean the working person will get the shaft at some point. King supported the Homeland Security Department bill -- which stripped workers in that department of collective bargaining. John Kennedy [head of the Building and Construction Trades Council] ought to look at King's record and see that it is more than one issue that would give the unions a second look at the man they support. King is not their friend.

John Rennhack
the editor of

Dear Editor,
Re: "Kingly Fashion," I would have to disagree with John Kennedy, head of the Building and Construction Trades Council [of Nassau and Suffolk], when he says, "We probably wouldn't abandon a candidate over just one issue..." First of all, when that one issue is Social Security, that's big enough to warrant a break. Working people bled to earn Social Security for all of us, and we have to make sure we don't lose it. But secondly, Peter King is wrong on so many issues, it's hard to know where to start. He recently supported an extremely harsh bankruptcy law that extracts the last dime from working people who get in trouble when they lose their job or have exorbitant medical bills, but offers cushy exceptions for corporate defaulters. He supported making permanent the repeal of the estate tax which ought by rights to be called the Paris Hilton tax. We are paying for this loss of revenue from the super-rich with an increase in the stealth alternative minimum tax -- which affects more middle-class families every year. And finally, King recently voted for an energy bill that allows petroleum companies to sink MTBEs into our groundwater while exempting them from prosecution. Peter King is no friend to the middle class.