Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
" ZAHN: Our "Top Story" coverage moves now to the controversy here in Washington over one key congressman's claims about Muslims in this country.
Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has said that the vast majority of mosques here in the U.S. are controlled by Muslim extremists. And that's only the beginning of the charges he's making, charges that are causing a lot of outrage.
Jason Carroll has more. "
" JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's the holy month of Ramadan, and this is the image Muslims here say truly reflects who they are: law-abiding, peaceful people, not, as their own congressman claimed in a recent campaign letter, part of an Islamic threat that could cause another 9/11.
And New York Republican Peter King has also said, according to law enforcement sources he spoke with, 85 percent of mosques in the United States, including this one, are run by extremists.
FAROQUE KHAN, MOSQUE MEMBER: Where is this 85 percent? Who did the study? On what basis? What questions were asked? And how did he come up with this number?
CARROLL: Several members of the mosque agreed to speak to us about the claim.
KHAN: It's very painful to have a senior politic to make those statements, without really having any direct interaction with the community.
ERIC BYASERIC, MOSQUE MEMBER: You have extremists in basically any community, any -- any belief system. So what? You deal with them accordingly.
CARROLL: A federal law enforcement official agrees that there are some extremists in American mosques, but dismisses the validity of 85 percent, saying it was much too high.
(on camera): Do you actively try to seek out those who may have extreme thoughts or extreme points of view?
KHAN: Do we conduct interviews with all the people who come in and out? No. But, if we hear something -- and I haven't heard anything yet -- believe me, I will be the first to call the FBI.
CARROLL (voice-over): There's another concern King has raised. He says the mosque fosters 9/11 conspiracy theories that the CIA or Zionists may have been behind the attacks. But, of those we interviewed, just one had reservations about who was behind the terrorist attacks.
MUNIRE TERPIS, MOSQUE MEMBER: How do we know they did it? I mean, it was just -- it happened -- like, instant, as -- as soon as the towers fell, it was, like, Muslims did it. How -- how do you clarify? How do you prove that?
CARROLL (on camera): Well, who do you think is responsible for what happened?
TERPIS: I don't know. I don't know. To this day, I don't know.
CARROLL (voice-over): A recent Zogby poll showed 42 percent of all Americans believe the government is covering up something surrounding the attack. So, Muslims here wonder, why focus on them?
The national director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations says this is about King trying to win reelection.
NIHAD AWAD, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: It's very disturbing to see a member of the United States Congress exploit the anti-Muslim prejudice and fear within the society just to get a few more votes and some money.
CARROLL: So, during this holiest of months for Muslims, some here will be praying for forgiveness and the hope there will be more understanding.
Jason Carroll, CNN, New York. (END VIDEOTAPE)"
We did our own interview with Dr. Khan over a week ago. We also covered Kings original comments two years ago. And came to find a coincidence that he starts attacking Long Island Mosques just as he is releasing his book about Islamic terrorists on Long Island.
The Paula Zahn interview with King was priceless..
" ZAHN: And joining me now, the man stirring up all the controversy, Representative Peter King."
And as John McCain said in The Hill Newspaper, "there is little in Mr. King’s singularly unimpressive legislative record to suggest that he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites."
Now back to the interview...
"ZAHN: Representative King, I want to start off by reading from a letter that you wrote to your constituents this month. And you said, "Because I have put aside political correctness and spoken out against these radical leaders, I have been denounced by Muslim organizations as a Muslim hater."
Are you a Muslim hater?
REP. PETER KING (R-NY), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely not. In fact, I work very closely with a number of Muslims.
But you were talking there to the Islamic Center of Long Island, which I actually had a very close relationship prior to September 11. But, despite what people like Dr. Khan were telling you tonight, the fact is, throughout the fall of 2001, people like Ghazi Khankan, who was the interfaith director of that mosque, said that there was no proof that al Qaeda or Muslims had attacked. The mosque -- he said that Mohamed Atta was alive and well in Emirates, that two of the other hijackers were alive in Saudi Arabia, that the FBI knew this and was covering it up.
And he also said that the Zionists, the Jews, could well have been responsible for it. The co-president of that mosque was peddling the rumor that Mossad was behind it all.
Dr. Khan, who you saw tonight, was the president-elect at the time and the most prominent spokesman at the mosque. He never once, during that entire time, in any way rebuked Ghazi Khankan, who stayed on as the interfaith director, and today, as an individual, is still saying the Mossad could have been behind the attacks.
My basis for the 85 percent was Sheikh Kabbani, who's one of the leading Muslims in this country, back in the year 2000, said that he thought at least 80 percent of the mosques were taken over by extremist leaders, by radical Muslims."
A couple of things, first King has still been taking campaign contributions from Dr. Khan even up until last year. They were never returned. Second, King says his "basis" for the number "85%" is Sheikh Kabbani who said "80%."
So King adds another 5% for shits and giggles?
To quote Tom Delay (of all people) before king did his best to kiss as much butt as possible, "Pete King has a reputation as making things up, and this is no different."
The interview continues..
" ZAHN: All right.
KING: And that has been my experience.
ZAHN: But we heard him also say those numbers are absolutely preposterous. Do you still stand by that 85 percent statistic?
KING: I'm saying that Sheikh Kabbani, who was -- again, he -- he testified back in the year 2000 and said that.
And I'm telling you I know of any number of mosques in New York where the police are very concerned about them, where there are radicals in there. And, absolutely, yes, I stand by that number. It was 80 percent back in 2000. Based on the radicalization since then, it has to be -- I have no doubt, I have problem at all in saying it's 85 percent. If it's not 85, it's still 80. "
So, Kabbani says this in 2000 but it takes until 2004 when King releases his book to actually bring this up.
Same thing for his attacks on Dr. Khan.
" ZAHN: All right.
Let me close with this. You just heard, in Jason Carroll's piece, that -- that Muslim leaders are accusing you of stoking this kind of fear to get elected and fund your campaign.
ZAHN: Your reaction to that.
KING: Absolutely untrue. I have been saying this...
ZAHN: Your opponent thinks that's the case.
KING: I have been saying this -- he can say what he wants.
I have been saying this for a number of years. I have been in this debate with people like Dr. Khan and the Islamic Center of Long Island going back two, three, four years. They -- what they did was absolutely outrageous. I have said this time and time again. This is nothing new.
What I have been saying now is consistent with what I have been saying for the last several years. And Dr. Khan comes out a mosque, where his interfaith director said that the CIA and the FBI were behind what was happening. They knew that Mohamed Atta was still alive, that he knew that the other two hijackers were still alive in Saudi Arabia. And he implied that the Zionists -- that's the Jews, the Israelis -- were behind that attack. Dr. Khan never once rebuked him -- never once.
ZAHN: All right, we have got to leave it there.
Congressman King, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
KING: Thank you, Paula."
Still the attacks on Dr. Khan.
King was a guest at Dr. Khan's sons wedding.
King takes money from Dr. Khan and other members of the Mosque up to 2005 according to the FEC.
King wrote a piece for Dr. Khan's book.
The letter about the Mosque and "muslim extremists" went out to Jewish voters.
We posted letters to the NYPost from people of different faiths who view the Mosque quite differently.
A local Rabbi wrote to Newsday to condemn Kings letter.
The simple fact is that you just can't trust Peter King.
And "extremist" or not, please throw a few greenbacks Dave Mejias' way through out Act Blue page. It's time to have a congressman who tells the truth.
And check out the Peter King Store. There is still time to get some cool swag.
Monday, September 25, 2006
DHS is increasing Port Security funding from 6.6 million dollars to $25 million.
But it still doesn't make up for what was lost.
There is another problem according to ABC7, "The money is designed to help ports guard against attacks by land or sea but it's not designed to pay for cargo screening or container inspections."
Cargo screening and container inspections are still too few. We need funding for that.
So before King goes on a victory lap, he still has to answer for the millions that are still lost.
CQ: How’s it going so far?
Mejias: It’s been great, the reception’s been incredible, it’s been one like great thing after another building on itself. ... There are a lot of politicians that will say that they’re the perfect person for X, Y and Z, and the fact of the matter is I could spend 10 million dollars, [King] could spend 10 million dollars, we could both be like the greatest political candidates in the history of the world, but there are things that are beyond us that are going to effect this race. ...
Nationally, you have demoralized Republicans, [and] locally on Long Island, you have Democrats who are completely energized because we’ve just gotten elected to all these offices, we’re pumped. ...
They’re talking about this perfect storm nationally happening where the Democrats will take back the House. There’s a tsunami in New York and especially in Long Island when you consider the top of the ticket, what’s going on locally, and the national issues that people are really upset about.
CQ: You mentioned that, as you said, the voter registration doesn’t reflect how Democratic the district is, as your argument is. April numbers indicate it is 43 percent Republican and 29 percent Democratic. Despite what you said about Democrats’ good showing in the presidential election, Peter King still has managed to win with pretty strong margins. Do you think that that is an impediment that despite what’s going on nationally, Peter King has consistently done very well?
Mejias: Listen, if you’re on the ballot against nobody, you’re going to do well. I mean, who’s running against him? Nobody. I’ve raised more money than the last four candidates combined already. I mean, these guys have spent no money, they were never on TV, no mail, I mean, he’s never been challenged. Which is part of the reason why he’s become such a Washington insider — he’s been able to become one of the Republican elite because he doesn’t really have to answer to the regular working person, independent person back home that doesn’t vote strict party lines. But this is a different year, and I’m a different type of candidate. ...
I’ve been in these races before, I’ve had the kitchen sink thrown at me. When has Peter King ever had a tough race? This is one of those unique years. And we saw it in ‘94 when the leadership, the Democratic leadership, was thrown out of office in overwhelming Democratic districts. That can happen this year.
For more go to Congressional Quarterly
Rep. Peter King's (R-Seaford) letter to his constituents tying his opponent, Dave Mejias, to Islamic financial support, when King has accepted even more money from the Islamic community is hypocritical, dishonest and a political deceit ["Clash on cash," News, Sept. 20]. That the letter "may have gone out more to Jews than others" is insulting and offensive. King has painted the Islamic community with a broad brush, claiming that 85 percent of all American Islamic clerics are "extremists," while many of these same leaders have called for an end to terror and violence. Dialogue is a better solution than diatribe.
Rabbi Michael L. Kramer
Editor's note: The writer is spiritual leader of Temple Judea of Massapequa.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
"Your name is on The List."
Who could this be from?
And what did it say?
"Someone has added your name to The List of Dislikable People, so come check it out!"
In order to send this anonymous e-mail, someone had to go to the website, enter credit card info and pay $5.
For 5 buck, the person could have gone to Carvel and gotten a large sundae.... or even wait until wednesday and get TWO sundaes.
Instead they paid for this.
I would have bought the sundae.
Congress Daily caught King lying about first-responder funding. "The agreement on a FEMA overhaul plan also has not calmed the rancor between House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and ranking member Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., over the issue of funding to help ensure that first responders can communicate with each other in an emergency. Thompson wants to provide $3.1 billion in additional funding to state and local governments for interoperable communications, but that funding was left out of the final agreement."
"King claimed Monday that Thompson never raised the issue of providing the $3.1 billion for interoperable communications during negotiations. "It's really unfortunate that certain Democrats are trying to raise these last-minute political issues," King said.
A committee spokesman added: "Chairman King and ranking member Thompson wrote our bill together, passed it through committee together, and were negotiating with the Senate together. This was never an issue until Mr. Thompson took it to the press late last week. Frankly, it looks more like an excuse to walk away from the negotiations than anything else."
Aides to Thompson said they raised the issue of providing $3.1 billion with King's staff before Labor Day. In one communication to King's aides before Labor Day, which was reviewed by CongressDaily, a Thompson aide mentioned the funding amount. Thompson aides added that Thompson's participation in the negotiations for overhauling FEMA was based on trying to get the $3.1 billion."
Then there was a Newsday story "Inconsistencies arise in King's attacks" about Kings letter to Jewish constituents and how he misrepresents (lies) about campaign contributions. "In thousands of letters to constituents this month, King (R-Seaford) criticized "American Muslim leaders" for failing to adequately denounce the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He took specific aim at the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury, saying the mosque's leaders "have publicly stated that the CIA or the 'Zionists' may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks.""Because I have put aside political correctness and spoken out against these radical leaders, I have been denounced as ... a 'Muslim hater,'" King wrote. "Now they are actively supporting my opponent."
The problem was that King took more money from members of the Mosque than Mejias.
"Last year, King took a total of $3,000 from three Muslim donors who have given $950 to Mejias this year, including Ahmed; Mohammed Saleh, president of the Long Island Muslim Society in East Meadow; and Syed Zaki Hossain, a Hicksville businessman."
Then, Newsday editorialized about the issue with "Peter King's holy war: Guilt by association bad tactic in race." King will of course scream "Liiiiibbbbbuuuurrrrraaaalllll Media" and denounce Newsday but ignore that the same Newsday editorial board endorsed him in the past and he accepted the endorsement.
"Rep. Peter King is playing with fire. He lit the torch when he told selected constituents in a recent letter that "radical" Muslim leaders who've branded him "a Muslim hater" are supporting David Mejias, the Democrat running for his seat in Congress. That's an ugly attempt at guilt by association. There is scant evidence that the Islamic Center of Long Island, the group King fingered so darkly in his letter, is the hotbed of radical, 9/11 conspiracy theories that King implies. And Mejias' connection to the group is tenuous at best.
So, what's the fuss? Mejias accepted campaign contributions from some Muslim supporters associated with the center. That's it. King previously took contributions from some of the same center members. There's nothing wrong with that. After 9/11, leaders of the center in Westbury condemned the attacks and supported international action against global terrorism. Earlier this year, five young people from the center joined Jewish and Catholic youths in a study tour of the Holy Land. Those actions couldn't be more at odds with the picture King painted of leaders who "publicly stated that the CIA or the 'Zionists' may have been behind the 9/11 attacks."
Ghazi Khankan, the leader most identified with such views, left the mosque two years ago. Maybe King is running scared. He's never been bashful about taking Muslim leaders to task for, in his view, insufficiently denouncing terrorism. His full-throated criticism has, no doubt, turned off many Muslims who now support Mejias. But to indict an entire mosque for the views of a few smacks of prejudice. And for King to imply that Mejias is tainted for taking money from people whose money he himself also accepted is just plain hypocritical."
We had an interview with Dr. Farouque Khan of the Islamic Center of Long Island.
"King Watch: Peter King is sending out a letter to what it looks like only Jewish constituents with the NYPost piece attached.The letter states "For instance, leaders at the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury have publicaly stated that the CIA and the "zionists" may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks." and on political contributions "What I am concerned about, however, is the larger issue of what it means to have people, who accuse Jews and he CIA of being responsible for 9/11, taking such an active role without the public knowing just who they are and what they stand for."Do you think this is an attempt to create a wedge between Long Island Muslims and Jews for the sake of votes?
Dr. Khan: Clearly the facts outlined in my previous answer contradict what the Congressman is saying and yes, this letter has the potential of undoing all the good work many of us have been doing in building bridges between faith groups. Incidentally in 2004- AMJID--received the faith fellowship award for our pioneering work with the Jewish community and in Oct. we are planning a joint Sukkoth-Ramadhan celebration at ICLI, last year we had this event in Temple Beth El in Great Neck, I will invite Cong King to the event."
The Mejias Campaign put out a press release on the letter.
"Rabbi Michael L. Kramer of Temple Judea in Massapequa said “Congressman Peter King’s letter to his constituents, tying his opponent, Dave Mejias, to Islamic financial support when he has accepted even more money from the Islamic community is hypocritical, dishonest, and a political deceit.”
And the Long Island Press story "Race Watch 2006 - Mejias To King: Keep It Clean," brought up Kings abyssmal enviromental record.
"Richard Amper, the Environmental Voters Forum’s treasurer, expresses in no uncertain terms his reason for favoring the underdog.
“This could not be a clearer call in terms of who the people of this district should vote for in November…your choice is between Dave Mejias, who is an environmental champion, and Peter King, who is an environmental Neanderthal.”
And this weekend, the Mejias campaign released its first TV ad which we will have up later tonight.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Dr. Khan among others at the Center have been branded "extremists" by King but the truth is far from what King says.
King Watch: How long has the center been open and what is your title/connection with the Islamic Center of Long Island?
Dr. Khan: Since 1984, Mosque building completed in 1991. I have served as president of the excutive comm. and currently serve as chair of the board of trustees for a three year term-2006-2009--all voluntary.
King Watch: How long have you known Rep. Peter King?
Dr. Khan: Since he was first elected, I believe in 1992 when I visited him, after that he visited my home($$$$), the mosque several times, including a book discussion of his first novel--Terrible Beauty-in which he describes the evolution of IRA and "Bernadette Hanlon" a housewife who becomes a 'terrorist' after her family suffers at the hands of the British etc.
On Aug 13 2001,he wrote on this book: "To Dr Faroque Khan--with my thanks for your friendship--All the best."
This pretty much covers our pre 9/11 relationship, cordial, professional, he sometimes called me and sought my views regarding medical questions and his chief of staff Gene Turner was in regular communication.
Congressman King attended my son's wedding reception as well. I also visited him in Washington when I was part of American College of Physicians-ACP- delegation and shared some ACP proposals regarding healthcare with him.
King Watch: King's comments about the 85% of Mosques being run by "extremists" coincided with the release of his book about muslim terrorists. Do you think his attacks on american-muslims was to increase his media presence and promote his book?
Dr. Khan: For well over a year post 9/11 2001 I was receiving regular mailings and responses from Cong King, his attacks and statements seemed to 'coincide' with the release of his book. If he was aware of statements from me or other's post 9/11 why did he wait for well over a year before speaking out??.
King Watch: King has made charges against you citing an incident at Temple Beth El in October 2001. He says attendees walked out while ou were speaking. What exactly happend and why is King saying differently?
Dr. Khan: As per Rabbi Jerome Davidson, a family left the sanctuary while I was speaking as they were running late for an event to celebrate a kid's birthday etc.
Rabbi Davidson stated this in a letter he wrote to Newsday in 2004 and incidentally Cong King was not present at that event.
King Watch: King contributed to your book "Story of a Mosque in America," saying "My visit to ICLI was memorable.I couldn't help but be impressed with the work ethic, devotion to family and spiritual commitment so evident at the center. It has been gratifying for me to help build a political awareness in this, the fastest-growing religious group in America."
Why do you think Kings views have changed?
Dr. Khan: I am puzzled and have requested Cong. (King) several times to let us know what specifically is bothering him, he has not responded to several written and personal invites.
King Watch: According to FEC filings, King took contributions from you after his attack on the Islamic Center. Did he attempt to return the contribution?
Dr. Khan: No, and he received and kept a sizable donation from the current president of Islamic Center--Mr Habeeb Ahmed within the past few months, who also invited Congressman to visit and meet with ICLI executive and board.
King Watch: Has King tried to make amends with you or the Islamic Center? Have you met with him since his original comments? Have you reached out to him?
Dr. Khan: We have invited King to our interfaith events, to our annual dinner and he has not responded.
King Watch: In the NYPost opinion piece by Adam Brodsky, he attributes some quotes to Ghazi Khankan. What did Mr. Khankan say and was it taken out of context or distorted?
Dr. Khan: I have no idea.
King Watch: How would you characterize yours and the Centers relationship with the Long Island Jewish community?
Dr. Khan: We have hosted several Jewish groups at ICLI, ourmdialogue with Temple Beth El in Great Neck--American Muslims and Jews in Dialogue-AMJID- is active and going strong, AMJID is used as a model in USA,we have hosted American Jewish Congress and there guests like Rabbi Rosen from Israel and last month a twelve member delegation from Israel. ICLI was selected for a unique Abrahamic delegation that visited Israel/Palestine in Feb 2006 with Rabbi Berman, Sternstein, two Catholic priests Fr Williams/Eichner and me along with 16 Catholic/Jewish/Muslim 11th graders, this was written up in Newsday/NY Times and featured as a special on God Squad--need I say more.
King Watch: Peter King is sending out a letter to what it looks like only Jewish constituents with the NYPost piece attached.
The letter states "For instance, leaders at the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury have publicaly stated that the CIA and the "zionists" may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks." and on political contributions "What I am concerned about, however, is the larger issue of what it means to have people, who accuse Jews and he CIA of being responsible for 9/11, taking such an active role without the public knowing just who they are and what they stand for."
Do you think this is an attempt to create a wedge between Long Island Muslims and Jews for the sake of votes?
Dr. Khan: Clearly the facts outlined in my previous answer contradict what the Congressman is saying and yes, this letter has the potential of undoing all the good work many of us have been doing in building bridges between faith groups. Incidentally in 2004- AMJID--received the faith fellowship award for our pioneering work with the Jewish community and in Oct. we are planning a joint Sukkoth-Ramadhan celebration at ICLI, last year we had this event in Temple Beth El in Great Neck, I will invite Cong King to the event.
King Watch: How do you feel about Peter King questioning your right to participate in the political process and those of other muslims?
Dr. Khan: He never questioned our rights in the past, in fact his chief of staff Gene Turner gave a session at the ICLI some years ago on how to become effective citizens.
Thank you for your time Dr. Khan.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
"... certain people in the British government: they were enraged when Peter King, Republican chairman of the House homeland security committee, blabbed to the media following a top- secret briefing just before the arrests in London last month of people accused of plotting to blow up transatlantic planes."
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
"The agreement on a FEMA overhaul plan also has not calmed the rancor between House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and ranking member Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., over the issue of funding to help ensure that first responders can communicate with each other in an emergency. Thompson wants to provide $3.1 billion in additional funding to state and local governments for interoperable communications, but that funding was left out of the final agreement.
"By refusing to provide desperately needed funds for interoperable communications, House Republicans and the White House have shamefully sold out our nation's first responders in an effort to score political points just weeks before the upcoming election," Thompson said.
King claimed Monday that Thompson never raised the issue of providing the $3.1 billion for interoperable communications during negotiations. "It's really unfortunate that certain Democrats are trying to raise these last-minute political issues," King said.
A committee spokesman added: "Chairman King and ranking member Thompson wrote our bill together, passed it through committee together, and were negotiating with the Senate together. This was never an issue until Mr. Thompson took it to the press late last week. Frankly, it looks more like an excuse to walk away from the negotiations than anything else."
Aides to Thompson said they raised the issue of providing $3.1 billion with King's staff before Labor Day. In one communication to King's aides before Labor Day, which was reviewed by CongressDaily, a Thompson aide mentioned the funding amount. Thompson aides added that Thompson's participation in the negotiations for overhauling FEMA was based on trying to get the $3.1 billion.
"The 9/11 Commission says that we absolutely must have interoperability," Thompson said in a statement Monday. "As a former firefighter, I'm with the first responders and the commissioners on this one. I'll leave the political game playing to Mr. King this season."
Thompson also did not participate in signing off on the final agreement last week because the $3.1 billion was not being provided, an aide added. "We were no longer in the room because they basically told us our one issue was not on the table," the aide said."
Why does King need to lie?
Why doesn't he want to fund crucial communication upgrades??
Check out the Daily Dave for pictures of the event
Mejias was endorsed by Michael White, Chair, Long Island League of Conservation Voters, Patrick McGloin, Chair, Long Island Sierra Club Executive Committee, and Richard Amper, Environmental Voters Forum
Sunday, September 17, 2006
From the NYSun
"In 1984, the Secret Service listed him as a threat when President Reagan made a trip to Nassau County to watch a Special Olympics event."
"He forged links with leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland, and in America he hooked up with Irish Northern Aid, known as Noraid, a New York based group that the American, British, and Irish governments often accused of funneling guns and money to the IRA. At a time when the IRA's murder of Lord Mountbatten and its fierce bombing campaign in Britain and Ireland persuaded most American politicians to shun IRA-support groups, Mr. King displayed no such inhibitions. He spoke regularly at Noraid protests and became close to the group's publicity director, the Bronx lawyer Martin Galvin, a figure reviled by the British.
Mr. King's support for the IRA was unequivocal. In 1982, for instance, he told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County: "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry."
By the mid-1980s, the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic were openly hostile to Mr. King. On one occasion, a judge threw him out of a Belfast courtroom during the murder trial of IRA men because, in the judge's view, "he was an obvious collaborator with the IRA." When he attended other trials, the police singled him out for thorough body searches."
PETER KING'S CHANGE OF HEART
"King has previous form in these matters. For many years he was the IRA's most indefatigable apologist in Congress. Time and again King would excuse or defend a terrorist organisation that thought nothing, amidst its many other crimes, of torturing those it disapproved of or suspected of being informers...."
"Among the methods favoured by the IRA was the "Six-Pack" in which their victim would be shot in both ankles, knees, and elbows. Not to worry, however, since the IRA was "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland."
That was not a one-off comment. King was not so much an appeaser of terrorism, but an active aider and abetter. In 1982 he told a pro-IRA rally, "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." Two years later what he called this "legitimate guerilla army" came close to successfully assassinating Margaret Thatcher.
It is good that King is finally ready to support those fighting rather than perpetrating terrorism. It's just a pity it took the murder of some of his own constituents five years ago to prod him along this path to decency - a path that has yet, alas, to lead him to condemning torture. Once an apologist always an apologist I suppose."
Friday, September 15, 2006
Have You Had Enough
WRITTEN BY: Tom Maxwell
PERFORMED BY: Rickie Lee Jones, Tom Maxwell & Ken Mosher, & Dave Roof on trumpet
ENGINEERED AND PRODUCED BY: Tom Maxwell & Ken Mosher at Kensway Studios in Pittsboro, NC
and Andy Paley with Jake Posner at Mad Dog Studios in Burbank
MIXED BY: Tom Maxwell & Ken Mosher
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Howie Klein
Read the Story of the Song at:
King is using the op-ed for a campaign mailing along with a letter he is sending out to only Jewish constituents in hopes by creating divisions and foster fear, he can win re-election.
Peter King Watch is in receipt of letters sent to Brodsky and the Post, all of which never saw print.
We present them below.
Note the cross-section if faiths represented in the letters defending the Long Island Islamic Center.
The NYPost op-ed can be found here.
This letter is in response to your article Pete King's Muslim Mess. Have you ever sat and talked with Dr. Khan or visited the Westbury mosque? I have and Dr. Faroque Khan is a rational, intelligent and diplomatic person. To associate him with extremism or terrorism is so far from the truth. He puts great effort and time in the Muslim and local community working to make a peaceful world. The Westbury Mosque is a beautiful integration of all people of Islam. Members are from diverse backgrounds including Egyptian, Indian, Pakistani, African American, Moroccan, Bangladesh, and "white" American to name a few. We work to improve ourselves and the community through prayer and charitable efforts.
It seems that you are the one spewing extremism in your article. I urge you to open your narrow field of information and sit down with Long Island Muslims and see who we really are. The unsubstantiated opinions you write are offensive to anyone who has a mind and can think. Peter King is pressing for racial profiling and condemning an entire religion. Isn't that reminiscent of what the Germans did to the Jewish community during Hitler's reign? I am a Muslim born and raised on Long Island. I love this country and the freedoms it gives me, one of which is the freedom of speech. I also know that along with freedom of speech there comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to speak with truth and knowledge and not just repeat propaganda and political rhetoric. Muslim Americans want the same for their children and grandchildren that all Americans want- the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I do not think we create a safer world through scapegoating. I think we create a safer world through dialoguing and diplomacy. I am saddened when I hear educated members of the American community and our leaders propagating hatred and fear of Islam. I believe their words are based on ignorance and misinformation. Maybe they should educate themselves, open their minds, look at all sides of the world situation and work towards real peace.
Barbara Cartabuke, Smithtown New York
Dear Mr. Brodsky:
In response to your 9/3/06 Post column, "Peter King's Muslim Mess," I have the following questions for you: Have you ever visited the Islamic Center of Long Island? Have you ever spoken personally to Dr. Faroque Khan, or read his writings?
If not, how do you know that they have "pushed a virulent anti-Israeli agenda for years." And, by the way, how many years?
I have actually known Dr. Khan for (actual) years (since 1999) and have visited ICLI and listened to sermons there on numerous occasions (at least 10 over the same period of time), bringing groups of medical residents and Sunday School students with me (as part of a series of field trips to the great faiths' houses of worship to give them a better appreciation of the role of religion in the lives of their fellow-citizens) . I have heard only one sermon there that had any inflammatory tone at all, and I promptly criticized it to mosque leaders after, without any refutation from them. All the others were about the serious practice of religion, not politics - some interesting, some boring. (Sermons are given by a large variety of laymen, and are not subject to prior censorship. Imagine a church or synagogue which invited most laymen to give sermons, without screening: do you think maybe an occasional extreme thought would occur about a pet topic?) I have personally heard Dr. Khan advocate a negotiated settlement in the Middle East that includes Israel's security as an essential element. He is one of the chief American voices for Muslim moderation in the world at large, and for peaceful, lawful civic participation by Muslims in America.
The fact that Sami al-Arian once chaired ISNA prove that the latter is extremist any more than the fact that New York once elected Paul O'Dwyer (who was a lawyer for Irish-American sympathizers who ran guns for the IRA) City Council President makes New York (or its government of the time) an extremist community. Another term for the guilt by association that you delight in is "McCarthyism."
Clearly you know very little about what you talk about. But the fact that the Post lets you prattle on in prime space about a subject you have not researched for yourself is no surprise after seeing how "fair and balanced" Rupert Murdoch's Fox News can be. (And let me add, Peter King may be a favored Murdoch Republican, but he is a lousy news source on this subject - once a visitor to ICLI and friend to Dr. Khan, King began to fling accusations when he had a novel to market, allegations which a local Great Neck rabbi has refuted and which King never substantiated.)
You should be as ashamed of yourself. Your column suggests that you are a character assassin and a yellow journalist, a purveyor or hatred and extremism yourself. Faroque Khan is a much better American than your column shows you to be, since he believes in and practices fair and reasoned speech. You might learn something from him if you visited ICLI and listened to him give a sermon - like the one my Sunday School class and I heard in 2004 about America's blessed Thanksgiving holiday. If you want to actually read something that Dr. Khan has actually said, please request a copy from me, and I'll email it to you. It might be a start back towards the truth - the truth your Mom probably once asked you to make your standard when you speak (or write).
Frederick A. Smith, MD,
Garden City, NY
I was greatly dismayed by your character assasination of Dr. Faroque Khan, and your inflammatory comments about Long Island's Muslim community, in your September 3 article on "Pete King's Muslim Mess." Dr. Khan has been a voice of moderation, tolerance, understanding and peace for years. Nobody I know - whether Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew or Hindu - has ever characterized him as an extremist. I suspect you will receive many comments and e-mails expressing similar sentiments in his defense.
The issue of racial profiling is a very serious one, and one that deserves to be looked at cogently and carefully. To label someone's comments as proof of extremism because he or she has raised objections to racial profiling, or because that individual supports a Congressional opponent's point of view, is unfair and does a disservice to the readers of the New York Post and the public at large.
Maj. Humayun J. Chaudhry, USAFR, MC, FS
Although I'm sure you have already set your mind in the wrong direction, let me try in any little way to redirect your thinking. I am personally acquainted with both Mr. Ghazi Khankan and Dr. Faroque Khan for at least 9 years and can assure you that you have mislabeled them and misquote (or misrepresented quotes....whichever the case, you have done your readers a great disservice). I am an American born white woman who converted to Islam 17 years ago. Never considering myself, or my husband (who isn't even really practicing by the standards of most Muslim) to be drawn to extreme people of any type, I can attest to the fact that we have both had very enjoyable times with these fine gentleman discussing everything from religion to politics, from property taxes to college tuition. I have had dinner at Dr. Khan's house with his family, whom are highly educated and VERY down to earth (or western thinking....as some might say). Mr. Khankan has attended events with my husband and myself. Never have I heard a hateful thing come from their mouths, not against America (their adopted homeland...where they raised their children), not against Jewish or Isreal, and DEFINITELY not in support of the views of Islam or actions taken by the terrorists groups we hear about daily in the our free press. I think it is your responsiblity, as a report who is educating the uneducated on a daily basis, to never misrepresent or slant the truth. Do you know WHY the Islamic Center of Long Island has withdrawn their support from Mr. King? Did you CONTACT either Dr. Khan or Mr. Khankan to find out what they really think, or feel? I find it sad that someone who is given the priviledge of spreading knowledge to the common person in the street would choose to publish a story before checking out for themselves where the real truth lies. Why don't you ask the congregants of the many churches and temples ICLI has been involved with what they think of these men and their views? Why don't you ask their own community how they view these men? Before rushing to your own ill informed judgement, and then passing that view onto your reader, educate yourselves in the facts. It is the ill informed reporters of our press that are helping to keep the unconfortable feeling my children have about their heritage alive. STOP THE HATE for my children's sake!
Dear Mr. Brodsky
I know it is fashionable to bash Muslims, but sir have you no decency. You brand Faroque Khan as an extremist yet cite absolutely not one word written or oral by Mr. Khan to support your outlandish claim. Your column is replete with innuendo but not one FACT. Even columnists who have been given great latitude with the facts - should have at least one fact to support such a claim. Perhaps your love affair with Pete King has clouded your judgment. You are entitled to your bias in favor of Rep. King and antipathy toward Mr. Mejias. As politicians they are fair game for your invective. But to brand Mr. Khan as an extremist! Nonsense. I have talked with Mr. Khan and his wife and they are not extremists. We need more thoughtful people like the Khans during these difficult times. Your column is not helpful.
Response to Breslow from Brodsky:
Readers can make up their own minds about his associations with ISNA and other organizations, including the mosque itself, his failure to condemn some of the outrageous conspiracy suggestions by his colleagues and a political agenda (described in the piece) that some may consider less than helpful in the War on Terror.
Rebuttal from Breslow to Brodsky:
Dear Mr. Brodsky:
Thank you for your response. Just so I understand your position, you brand Mr. Khan as an "extremist" because of his failure to condemn "some" outrageous statements. What about all his work and words to increase understanding among the various faiths in Nassau County. I suggest you talk with Mr. Khan and visit the Islamic Center in Westbury before condemning him. It is ludicrous to suggest that anyone who contributes to Mejias' campaign or who opposes King is an extremist or a terrorist sympathizer. If it is your contention that INSA is a terrorist sympathizer what is the Bush administration doing by sending high officials (e.g . Gordon England, Dep. Sec. of Defense) to the INSA convention.
Dear Mr. Brodsky,
It was with great displeasure and sadness that I read your Sept 3rd article titled Pete King's Muslim Mess. As an American, a Muslim, a mother , and congregants of Islamic Center of Long Island I'm very much an active member of interfaith committee within the Mosque, I take a great deal of offense and am outraged by your unsubstantial and baseless article calling our leader Dr. Faroque Khan an extremist and claiming that our center "often mask their extremism - through "benign" interfaith and other programs".
As a member of the interfaith committee of ICLI and a long standing member and a board member of ICLI, I may suggest that you and your entire editorial board should do a bit more research or should I say do your homework well instead of just copy and paste from some other baseless sources before writing any article on American Muslims, particularly American Muslims living in Long Island and claiming that I as a congregant of the Mosque am not aware of the happenings within my Mosque. Your ignorance and lack of knowledge, knowing and communicating with the Muslim community is so limited and its very apparent in your article.
With this, I along with my husband and three children take the opportunity to invite you to my Mosque, Islamic Center Of Long Island (ICLI) which has an open door policy to anyone and everyone who has an interest to find out about our community or has any question about our center or our programs. I strongly suggest you as reporter should take my advice and become well educated and well informed about us "The American Muslims in Long Island" before writing any article about our center (ICLI) or our leader Dr. Farouque Khan in the future . I'm looking forward to see you publish a retraction of inaccuracies and misstatement of your article
Dear Mr. Brodsky,
I was dismayed to read your September 3rd comments about Faroque Khan whom I have known for a number of years to be someone who has worked hard to further good relations with Jewish and Christian groups on Long Island. I was privileged to stay with his family in Kashmir almost two years ago and had many very deep conversations with them about a variety of sensitive issues involving Muslims and Jews. Never have I even caught a whiff of extremism either from him or his family; on the contrary, I have found them to be very intelligent, sensitive, caring people. I really have difficulty with your charges about him. They strike me as an unwarranted smear.
We live in such difficult times, especially for Muslims and Jews. Of course Muslims are going to have strong feelings about attacks on their civil liberties and about the Middle East, but I think it is unfair and unwise to fan the flames of anti Muslim sentiment without any real hard information. It accomplishes nothing except to further incite both groups against each other. There are too many people out there who delight in polarizing the rest of us. Dr. Khan is not one of them.
Member of Health Welfare Council Board.
We write in response to Adam Brodskys ("Pete Kings Muslim Mess" 9/3/2006) unwarranted attack on the character and patriotism of Dr. Faroque Khan and the members of the Islamic Center of Long Island. Dr. Khan has spent the better part of his life working tirelessly on behalf of religious dialogue and inter-religious understanding. The Islamic Center of Long Island is likewise committed to such goals. Having worked with Dr. Khan on several occasions we know Mr. Brodskys charges to be untrue and are appalled that they were published this week, when we are all engaged in commemorating those who lost their lives almost 5 years ago. Ultimately, we hope readers will recognize that Mr. Brodskys attempt to describe all Muslims as extremists plays directly into the hands of that tiny minority who do pursue their goals by violent means. Instead, we encourage readers to pursue the path of dialogue and understanding, a path blazed on Long Island by religious leaders like Dr. Khan and organizations like the Islamic Center of Long Island.
Warren G. Frisina, Chair Hofstra University, Department of Religion
Markus Dressler, Hofstra University, Department of Religion
Dan Varisco, Hofstra University, Department of Anthropology
We are responding to your "Peter King's Muslim Mess" article. Unfortunately, this article is just another example of the poor reporting and journalism that our society is afflicted with. A classic "Cut and Paste" of character assassination tack tick conformed on baseless and uninformed judgment. Perhaps you should consider a different field of work if you cannot take the time to meet and investigate the individuals that you grossly misstated and judged. As a reporter, shouldn't you have done your research before writing such a piece of grossly misstated and out of context arguments??? Perhaps you should start with The New York Times, Newsday, News 12, WLIW television station as resources for your retraction of your article I can bet your career that they would have a lot more positives to share with you about Dr. Faroque Khan, Mr. Ghazi Khankan and the Islamic Center of Long Island over your Mr. Peter King.
Simply Disappointed and Disgusted,
Sal and Hoda Spiteri,
North Babylon, NY
You obviously do not know the man whom you accuse in your Sept. 3 column of being a Muslim extremist. Dr. Khan is one of kindest, gentlest peacemakers I know, and he has been a powerful voice within his community and in our region for rejecting violence and building interfaith understanding. He created an extraordinary Jewish-Muslim exchange group more than a decade ago and has been a key supporter of both the Long Island Multi-Faith Forum and interfaith dialogues about creating peace in the Middle East.
Rather than attacking Dr. Khan for going to a meeting of the Islamic Society of North America with guilt by association, you might note that ISNA (a predominantly Sunni group) heard a keynote address by a prominent Shia scholar--clearly an act of grace and peacemaking within the Muslim community. You have heard, haven't you, that Shia and Sunnis are killing each other in Iraq? At this same meeting, ISNA elected a woman as their President. What do they have to do to convince you that they are moderates? Elect a female Methodist?
Every community has its extremists--I am currently represented in Congress, for example, by someone with close ties to what was once a terrorist organization in Ireland. It takes a fair amount of chutzpah for Congressman King to cast stones at others when it comes to terrorism, but I would be the first to give him credit for having used his contacts with Sinn Fein to help bring about peace in Northern Ireland. Who knows, if we had a few congressmen with ties to the LDF and the LVA--Protestant paramilitary groups who killed far more indiscriminately than the IRA ever did--Ireland might be even further along in its reconciliation.
The Rev. Thomas W. Goodhue,
Executive Director , Long Island Council of Churches
In your recent article you described the Islamic Center of Long Island, which is four blocks from my house, as Islamic extremists hiding behind the facade of acceptability. Not only is the center a neighbor, but as a professor of religious ethics, I have gotten to know several of the leaders well on a personal and professional level. Far from your characterization, I see the center as the hope for the future of Islam.
In fact, I have seen changes there, which in my view, are for the better. For example, during community meetings in the prayer center, men and women are no longer separated. And even during prayer services, guests can sit without separation by gender if they so wish.
There may be extremists in the center. I don't know that, but who would be surprised if this were the case? But they are not the leadership and the center is moving in a moderate (I would say Enlightenment) direction. Rather than brand them as extremists, I think I wiser course would be to encourage the liberalization that has occurred.
Prof. Arthur Dobrin
RESPONSE FROM Brodsky to Prof Dobrin.
The associations by the mosque's leaders with pro-terror groups like CAIR; their outrageous statements over the years (which, to my knowledge, they've never retracted); their support of anti-American, anti-Israeli wackos (like Cynthia McKinney), and their long record of virulent anti-Israel positions and opposition to counterterrorism, combined with what law enforcement and even some Muslims say is a lack of sufficient cooperation on the anti-terror front, belie your hopeful impression. I wish that you're right that there is "liberalization" -- ie, moderation -- at the mosque underway, but your examples do not provide much hope.
Thanks for your letter. I'll forward it to our letters editor; they may want to run it, with your permission.
I was dismayed by Adam Brodsky's article in the New York Post entitled, "Pete Kings Muslim Mess," that accused the Islamic Center of Long Island in Westbury and its leadership of Muslim extremism. If the charge were not so absurd and defamatory, it would be laughable. I would also label it utterly irresponsible.
Fifteen years ago Temple Beth-El of Great Neck engaged in a dialogue program with the Islamic Center that continues to this day. The members of the dialogue began to teach each other about their respective religions, preparing presentations on customs, beliefs, holidays, the Bible and the Koran, the role of women, the Muslim and Jewish family, with new themes emerging all the time.
Then the circle became larger. The Muslims were invited to a Shabbat service and to bring other members of the Mosque as well. A hundred came. We invited them to an interfaith Seder. They invited us to their service and a dinner following and to bring members of the congregation along with us.
When the home dialogues seemed to have run their course, open sessions were held in the Mosque and the Temple for the two communities. They came to us in large numbers to join in a session discussing Islam in America. One presented a diary of his Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at a Havdalah service. We brought members of our congregation to speak to their community on a Sunday morning on the challenge of being a minority in a gentile land. Another Sunday morning a year later, we spoke on civil rights issues, church-state challenges that both communities face.
Our religious school children meet with Muslim youngsters a couple of times a year in both our Temple and the Mosque. We are planning a gathering in a few weeks to jointly celebrate the Jewish festival of Sukkot and Islams Ramadan, to learn more about one anothers faiths.
These are not, as Brodsky charges, benign interfaith programs? that mask extremism. They represent the best of America: tolerance, respect and the freedom that allows different peoples to sit down together in peace.
As for discussions regarding the Middle East, differing points of view are, of course, expressed within both communities and when we come together. All share, however, the hope for peace and security among Jews and Muslims everywhere.
So why is Representative King beating his demagogic drum? Perhaps an election is coming.
Rabbi Jerome K. Davidson,
Temple Beth-El of Great Neck
Indeed Rabbi, an election is coming and King hopes to divide rather than bring together.
To quote Sen. John McCain regarding Peter King "...there is little in Mr. King’s singularly unimpressive legislative record to suggest that he is motivated by anything other than a compulsion to utter provocative sound bites."
Why is King using his own bigotry to divide others?
Why does King need to launch a campaign of lies?
When we need to bring people together, King wants to split them apart just so he can win re-election.
NY-03: Peter King Starts His Smear Campaign
by Dave Mejias for Congress
Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:19:54 AM PDT
You would think a fourteen year incumbent Congressman would have a lot of positive things to say about his record in a reelection campaign. You would think an incumbent Congressman who claims he's in no danger of defeat would ignore his opponent. Not Peter King. He's kicked off his campaign with a campaign mailing that attacks me! And while I'm honored that King takes me seriously enough to attack in his first campaign mailing, he's made it very clear how he plans to try to win: smear his opponent, and run a campaign based on fear and divisiveness. It's a typical Republican tactic across the country - we've seen in the Virginia and Montana senate races, as well as countless House races. Now the Rove-approved, fear-based campaign tactics have finally come to Long Island.
His letter uses an opinion piece in the New York Post to claim that I am being supported by the leaders of the Islamic Center in Westbury, located in the 3rd Congressional District, and that these leaders are Muslim extremists.
Even worse, he targeted his letter to Jewish voters in the district, playing the fear card to try and strip away support from my campaign.
I wish I could say that's the worst of the story, but it isn't. Turns out, Peter King has taken contributions from the very same leaders of the very same Islamic Center.
Let me break that down for you: I accepted contributions from three leaders at the Islamic Center in Westbury, and Peter King has attacked me for taking their money. The problem is, Peter King took their money too, and he even took more than I did! Peter King needs to explain why it's wrong for me to take money from Muslim donors, but OK for him to take even more from the same people.
King has finally realized that he's in serious danger of losing his job as George Bush's "guy in Congress." He's unleashed the Republican smear machine, and they will stop at nothing to win. In order to combat his campaign of fear and division, I need your help! Visit my campaign website to sign up as a volunteer or make a donation to help me combat King's dirty tactics. Together we can fight back and we can win!
Democratic candidate for Congress, NY-03
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I wrote this as a letter to Newsday, similar to a letter they had printed of mine on 7/5/05, which is referenced on your website. I never received a call back so my assumption is that they aren't going to print. I figured maybe you would like it as a letter from a sometime blogger and a frequent visitor to your website.
Are You Feeling Morally, Intellectually and Politically Wrong???
A Cure For What Ails You...
As of late, courtesy of political speeches by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush, Americans whom disagree with policies regarding Iraq or the manner of which this war has been fought, have "moral and intellectual confusion" and are "appeasers". This bullying tactic has been used by Peter King (R-Seaford) for over a year now.
Last summer, Newsday printed a story about a constituent of who was dismayed with the government policy and tactics in Iraq. Upon writing a letter to his elected representative, he received a response back from Rep. King calling him "morally, intellectually and politically wrong."
So to all the patriotic Long Islanders whom disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, according to Peter King, you are "morally wrong."
The good Americans whom have changed their mind in the face of facts and believe that the invasion was a mistake or think we need to add or even remove troops, according to Peter King, you are "intellectually wrong."
And the multitude of Democratic and Republican House & Senate members, retired generals and political pundits on every side of the aisle that have called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign, according to Peter King, they all must be "politically wrong"
Apparently quite a few of Mr. King's constituents have received this form letter, cementing this as his position for anyone whom disagrees with the policies he supports. Together, the majority of America that has the gall to question these men or the execution and policies implemented in their War on Terror, are "appeasing the enemy".
Peter King is scraping the bottom of the barrel and hoping the muck gets him re-elected. I can only recall the words of a great Republican, a man whom, if alive, Peter King would represent today.....
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
President Theodore Roosevelt
Lets hope the voters on Long Island reject this un-American tactic that believes that the best asset of our democracy, debate, aids the enemy.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
There is alot to say and alot to be done but for this one day, there is something more important than politics.
Tuesday's Children is a non-profit working to help the families and count on donations to keep their important programs running.
National Search Dog Foundation
World Trade Center Police Disaster Relief Fund
Uniformed Firefighter‘s Association Scholarship Fund
The Port Authority Police World Trade Disaster Survivors’ Fund
Friday, September 08, 2006
King opens an office every year and each year it lies empty except for a collection of signs. No active staff could be found in his 2004 office on Jerusalem Avenue or in 2002 on Merrick Road.
In the window is a picture of King with Rudy Guiliani.
Is this supposed to impress us?
Guiliani as the truth is slowly being released, was an utter failure on security matters for NYC leading up to 9/11.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Minimum wage, workplace safety and social security should be included as national priorities
FARMINGDALE – Dave Mejias, Democratic candidate for Congress in New York ’s 3rd Congressional District, observes Labor Day by calling for a national commitment to working families. As a Nassau County Legislator, Dave Mejias has championed labor issues; his record is in sharp contrast to his opponent Peter King’s record. Mejias believes a national commitment to labor in this country is necessary for a national minimum wage increase, continued workplace safety and the protection of Social Security.
“I have stood up for hard working families, and it’s time Washington does the same,” said Mejias. “Peter King and George Bush have turned their backs on hard working people. Instead of increasing the minimum wage, making health care affordable, maintaining workplace safety codes and securing social security they have given tax cuts to the wealthiest and special breaks to corporations making it harder for working families to make ends meet.”
Peter King’s voting record proves he has turned his back on working families:
King voted YES on HR 653, which resulted in nearly $40 billion in spending cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, student aid, child support enforcement and other working family programs.
King votes YES on HR 3010, which would have cut critical funds for job training and employment services, college aid, elementary and secondary education programs and rural health funding.
King voted YES on HR 525, which would exempt health plans from state consumer protection rules and offer minimal health plans to younger workers.
King and the Republican controlled Congress have prevented an increase in the minimum wage for over 9 years. Under current law, a full time worker earning minimum wage in the United States makes $10,700 a year, almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.
King supports of the Bush plan to privatize Social Security (The New York Sun, 3/14/05)
Dave Mejias has the voting record to match his rhetoric. Mejias authored legislation to protect the rights of domestic workers, voted for the living wage bill that increased the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour for workers doing business with Nassau County , and fought to eliminate gender based pay inequity for 911 operators in Nassau County . Mejias earned the State AFL-CIO endorsement last month in the 3rd Congressional race; it was the first the AFL-CIO had ever endorsed King’s opponent