Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Faisal Gill Digs Deeper Hole

By Greg L | 2 May 2007 | 51st HOD District | 53 Comments

Mason Conservative has a fascinating post today where Faisal Gill, candidate for the 51st House District attempts to explain his side of some of the controversies which have embroiled his campaign. It really is a must-read.

Gill denies having much of a relationship at all with convicted terrorist Abduraman Alamoudi, despite having worked for him in an organization that appears to have had only about ten employees, and during the same period of time that Alamoudi announced that he was a supporter of Hamas during a rally in front of the White House. Later on in the article Gill describes his work as an outreach effort by the American Muslim Council towards the federal government. How we’re supposed to square that Gill is in charge of outreach, but unaware of the political activities of the head of the organization he is supporting isn’t clear.

Faisal Gill then goes on to claim that he didn’t know who (now convicted terrorist) Sami Al-Arian was. That’s intriguing since Faisal Gill staged a walkout from a White House meeting after Al-Arian’s son was asked to leave by the Secret Service, and told reporters at the time that the reason Abdullah Al-Arian was probably asked to leave was because of the “political activity” of his father. Sami Al-Arian was another one of Grover Norquist’s muslim insiders, along with Abduraman Al-Amoudi and Faisal Gill himself. But he only knew Sami Al-Arian from “community news and events”. This is ridiculous.

Next Faisal Gill tries to tapdance around the “Faisal Gill Affair“, saying that he was never employed by the American Muslim Council, but by “a consulting company”. If that’s the case, it’s interesting that Faisal Gill listed the American Muslim Council and the Islamic Institute as his employer on an earlier executive branch financial disclosure form. On his SF86 security clearance form, which he completed later, he listed his employer as being the “AG Consulting Group”. If Faisal Gill “was never employed by the AMC”, as he says, why did he list them as his employer on a form in which knowingly providing false information is a felony offense?

Faisal then denies that he is under investigation for improper use of his Naval Uniform, and says the following:

Q: [BVBL] claims you have violated the USMJ code: ‘Under DODD 1344.10 (Aug 2004) a reserve or retired person may be a candidate for political office but is not allowed to be the sole or primary figure in uniform in a photograph, video tape, web sites, or any type of ad or commercial.” How do you respond?

A: That is an interesting reading. Here is the Instruction, you judge for yourself. Also, I am under no Navy investigation at and have never been under any investigation. Nobody from the Navy even contacted me about any of this.

The “interesting reading” is a direct quote from Lieutenant Commander Lorraine Luciano, who was recently the Branch Head of the Standards of Conduct and Government Ethics Branch Administrative Law Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General. She is now on maternity leave, but I’ve got a call in to her deputy to get an update on the investigation LCDR Luciano said has been undertaken. Since Faisal Gill has publicly commented on this matter, I would assume he’s waived his right to confidentiality, so I do expect to get a meaningful response.

It’s great that Faisal Gill is interested in excavating himself deeper into the hole he’s dug for himself, and I hope there are lots of other opportunities for him to continue doing so. There’s still an enormous amount of material that Faisal Gill hasn’t commented on yet. Someone who is so consistently, let’s say “creative”, with the truth makes for plenty to talk about.

UPDATE: Jonathan mark has a very good in-depth analysis of the interview here.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

53 Comments

  1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 May 2007 at 5:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mason Conservative did a wonderful job of interviewing Gill. They were hardhitting without being rude. I really appreciate their having asked Gill the tough questions that produced Gill’s dissembling answers.

    Here are a few points which I have made elsewhere. Gill says of the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi:

    “”"He was on the board on American Muslim Council when I was working for them.

    This gets back to the question of when Faisal Gill first worked for the American Muslim Council and when he last worked for them. The controversial terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi officially left the AMC board in 2000, while remaining in control of the organization.

    If Gill was at AMC while Alamoudi was on the AMC Board then that means that Gill worked for Alamoudi in 2000. We know Gill was working at the AMC in the aftermath of 9-11. If Gill was also at the AMC while AMC founder Alamoudi was on the board then Gill was at the AMC for about a year at least.

    In fact we don’t know how long Gill was at the AMC because Gill refuses to say. People who run for office, or apply for any job, are supposed to provide accurate and complete work histories. Gill is not providing one with respect to his work for the AMC.

    Gill says:

    “”"What is interesting and was never reported was that at the same time I was completing my ethics forms in which I not only disclosed that I worked for AMC,”"”

    Agreed. This should put an end to dissembling saying that Gill did not work for the AMC. Gill himself says “I worked for AMC.”

    Gill says:
    “”"Q: What was the nature of your work at the American Muslim Council, and be as specific as possible?
    A: I was the spokesman and I also assisted them in reaching out to Congress. I attended meeting with AMC and congressmen.”"”

    Gill’s title at the AMC was director, government relations. He was a lobbyist. This is a problem, because AMC founder Alamoudi stated the following, according to the 3/1/2004 edition of Insight On The News: “‘On June 2, 2000, the U.S.-based al-Zaitounah newspaper interviewed Alamoudi in English on his pro-Hamas activities at the AMC. “Our position with regard to the peace process is well-known,” he said. “We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.’”

    Gill continues:
    “”"During the few months I was there I also was involved in inviting government officials to a AMC conference.”"”

    Gill was at the AMC for more than a few months. But this latter admission of Gill’s is significant.

    The AMC held its annual conference in Arlington in the third week of June, 2004. Rep. James P. Moran was a keynote speaker. During Moran’s speech at the AMC Moran repeatedly addressed Abdurahman Alamoudi, who had organized the conference. The AMC placed a video of Moran’s speech online, and David Harris of the American Jewish Committee hired someone to make a transcript. This transcript is available online at http://www.jonathanmark.com/Blog/1077490808.

    Jim Moran said: “…Mr. Sharon is coming to Washington this week. He’s (boos in audience) no no no no, no, no, no. (something said in background) I’ll get in trouble, I don’t want you to do that. He’s probably seeking a warrant from President Bush to kill at will with weapons we have paid for…Now, the reason I just said that is because Abdurahman wanted me to express some views on my own. When I said no, no, no I’m not going to do that because I’m supposed to be here representing Mark Warner and if I do that I’m going to get Mark in trouble…Can I…Is that okay Abdurahman? Mr. Alamoudi wants me to, didn’t want me to get into too much politics…”

    These remarks indicated Alamoudi’s continued leadership role in the American Muslim Council as of June, 2001. What did Gill think when he heard Moran’s remarks about Alamoudi?

    “”"Q: Were you aware in ANY WAY of Alamoudi’s actions? And despite him being voted out of AMC, did you know that he still controlled it through friendly board members, and if so, why did you continue working there?
    A: No.”"”

    I find it bizarre that Gill claims to have been unaware of the controversies surrounding Alamoudi. The imprisoned terrorist, the founder of the American Muslim Council, was on national television at least thrice in 2000 expressing his support for Hamas. Hillary Clinton and George Bush both returned their Alamoudi donations as a result. Gill was the lobbyist for the organization that Alamoudi founded, and which he continued to control. Gill is not being truthful and forthcoming about his knowledge of Alamoudi’s actions.

    “”"While I was working for AMC, I was also working for Jay Katzen and was also working running a VA delegate campaign.”"”

    What follows is a question, not an accusation. Which campaign? When did Gill work for the AMC? We know Gill was there at the AMC in 2000 and 2001. Which delegate campaign was Gill running in those years? We have a very incomplete knowledge of Gill’s work history here. When was he first and last employed (paid) by the AMC or contracted to the AMC?

    “”"Q: In your past work in any compromise your sensitive job position at DHS?
    A: No, I worked to get American Muslims in the political mainstream.”"”

    That is Gill’s spin, but the AMC was not a civil rights organization in any meaningful way. It was an in part Libyan-funded front group run by a now-imprisoned Libyan secret agent.

    The AMC was so radical that in the aftermath of 9-11 it told Moslems not to talk to the FBI. The American Spectator reported in its 12/17/2003 edition: “If the crack research team at the FBI had looked at the AMC website in the aftermath of September 11, however, this is what it would have found under the heading, The Law Says You Don’t Have to Talk to the FBI: “The FBI is looking for information to use against you, your family and/or your community. The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI.…FBI agents are trained to get you to make incomplete or contradictory statements — which later can be used against you in court. It is better to say nothing.”

    Gill finishes up by saying of his work at the AMC:

    “”"I am not ashamed of it.”"”

    He should be.

  2. Jonathan Mark said on 2 May 2007 at 5:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Serious typo: The AMC conference at which Jim Moran addressed Alamoudi was in the third week of June, 2001.

    Alamoudi was in jail in 2004.

  3. James Young said on 2 May 2007 at 6:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Of course, it really doesn’t matter WHAT Faisal says: as long as he’s representing Greg’s litigation opponent, he’ll smear him, along with his Democrat “Amen!” chorus, JM.

  4. Jonathan Mark said on 2 May 2007 at 7:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young’s feigned outrage towards alleged Democrats is selective. The now-defunct American Muslim Council which employed Faisal Gill was a radical leftist organization allied with Ramsey Clark and International Answer. There were no Republicans there. Alamoudi gave mostly to Dems, including Jim Moran.

    Here is an excerpt from a 2/20/03 article by J. Michael Waller in FrontPage magazine. Since James Young isn’t willing to criticize Gill’s employer the American Muslim Council we can safely say that Young’s outrage over Dems is completely fake, and he is happy to have a stooge of a radical left-wing organization infiltrate the PWCRC:

    Waller wrote at http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6256

    “”"The American Muslim Council (AMC) didn’t make a public show over the February 15 weekend, but it did join the ANSWER coalition’s January 18 protests that marked the 12th anniversary of the Persian Gulf War, or what AMC referred to as the “war against the people of Iraq.” While the AMC joined others, particularly semi-official voices in the Saudi press, calling on Saddam Hussein to resign, it also embraced ANSWER. On January 15 it circulated an ANSWER flyer on its listserv, exhorting followers via e-mail to march on the White House. AMC national board treasurer Ali Khan led a caravan of Indiana and Chicago activists to the demonstration in Washington.

    AMC, like other U.S. Muslim groups that have long coveted legitimacy in official Washington, likes to play things both ways. Click to its website, www.amconline.org, and a ghostly image of Malcolm X flashes for a fraction of a second before a very mainstream-looking, red, white and blue homepage appears. That’s just a symptom of how the AMC operates. Since September 11, 2001, AMC has demanded – and received – the highest-level acceptance in the U.S. government. FBI Director Robert Mueller even spoke at the AMC’s national convention last June 28, with an FBI spokesman calling the AMC “the most mainstream Muslim group in the country.”

    The FBI media unit, when pressed, could produce nothing to substantiate the claim, but a visibly uncomfortable Mueller addressed the conference anyway. That appearance, with the FBI publicity unit’s imprimatur, gave the AMC more credibility than ever – even though that very month the organization was haranguing the Bureau for its investigation of domestic Muslim groups.

    The AMC calls itself an “active member” of the National Committee to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a William Kunstlerite group founded in the 1960s to provide legal support to terrorists and those who raise money and provide material support for them. Its causes have ranged from members of the Weather Underground to the Maoist Shining Path of Peru, to Abdul Rahman, the Egyptian “Blind Sheik” responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York. NCPPF’s executive director is Kit Gage works full-time as head of the old Stalinist National Lawyers Guild (NLG). Its president is Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor who reportedly was a founding leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

    AMC founder Abdurahman Alamoudi is by his own admission an enthusiastic supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah – the latter being responsible for the 1980s killing of 241 U.S. Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing, and for the car bombing of the American Embassy in Lebanon. Alamoudi recruited young and attractive Muslim political activists and helped them set up spinoff groups to influence mainstream political parties. He provided seed money for one of those groups, the Islamic Institute, which is chaired by his former protégé, Khaled Saffuri.

    The AMC likes to say now that the controversial Alamoudi is no longer with the organization and that it condemns all forms of terrorism. But Alamoudi isn’t alone. AMC’s former executive board president, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, was twice on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. Under his old name in the 1960s as H. Rap. Brown, he threatened to assassinate Lady Bird Johnson when she was First Lady of the U.S. He’s now a lifer in a Georgia prison for the 2000 murder of Fulton County Sheriff’s Deputy Ricky Kinchen.”"”

  5. Jonathan Mark said on 2 May 2007 at 7:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Sami Al-Arian mentioned in the article above is now in prison after a Florida federal court sentenced him for aiding Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And what does that have to do with Gill?

    Al-Arian was a hero to some of our more enthusiastic homegrown jihadists, so David Bonior (D-MI) hired Al-Arian’s son Abdullah as an intern, even though Bonior represented Michigan and the Al-Arians lived in Florida before Dad went off to jail.

    Abdullah Al-Arian was attending a meeting in the White House along with Faisal Gill. Some feds asked Abdullah Al-Arian to leave. The other attendees, including Gill, stormed out.

    Gill worked for the Grover Norquist-founded, Abdurahman Alamoudi (i.e., Libyan) funded Islamic Institute. No one is sure what Gill did at Norquist’s Islamic Institute, another nice how-do-you-do which Gill might neglect to share with the voters in November, assuming this lobbyist for a terrorist Gill makes it that far.

    After the other attendees, including Gill, stormed out Gill’s employer the Islamic Institute signed a statement complaining that the White House was trying to pick who America’s Muslim leaders were.

    All because Abdullah Al-Arian, the son of the now-convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian, who was only at the meeting to begin with because he was Al-Arian’s son, was asked to leave the White House.

    Gill should have stayed at that meeting. If he were really concerned with fighting terror as Gill PRETENDS to be then he would have stayed.

    Gill should explain why he walked out of the White House meeting after Abdullah Al-Arian was asked to leave.

  6. Chris said on 2 May 2007 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    I must jump in here to defend Gill. If he was a lawyer who wasn’t working at AMC all that long, its not that hard to conceive that he didn’t know the inner-workings of the organization. I don’t think we can necessarily hold Gill personally responsible for the actions of the very top of that Organization. In fact, it makes sense that he wouldn’t know. Why would AMC higher-ups who were engaged in this even want their spokesman, lawyer, and congressional lobbyist to know about it. Nixon once called it “plausable deniability” the way he kept the likes of Ron Zeigler out of the loop.

    From what I can tell, a lot of this seems to be guilt by association. So and so did this, so Gill either believes it or somehow endorses it. You talk about all the sins fo Alamoudi and Rap Brown (???), and somehow Gill is responsible for it? Its really not fair. Furthermore, how is bringing up all that stuff from the 1960s relevant to Faisal Gill?

    Gill’s work at AMC, from what he said, was to help bring mainstream Muslim’s into the mainstream of American political life. He should be proud of that, because if we don’t have people like Gill attempting to get Muslims into political life, we end up like France were angry Muslim immigrants, denied access into mainstream life, grow poor and angry–leading to riots. He should be proud of that. Its not fair to assume you know he’s lying about that without proof, testimony, or evidence to the contrary.

    I understand EVERYTHING your saying about AMC. But Faisal Gill worked their for just about or around a year - how can you hold him accountable for everything this group did or didn’t do from the 1960s on?

    I’m not defending the AMC, but I worry that if the GOP runs Gill out on a rail we Republicans/conservative will lose a precious chance to reach out to mainstream, law-abiding Muslims. I fear that political rejection based on the actions of a few will either a) move them forever into the Democratic camp, and in NOVA Repubs need every new voter we can get, and b) young Muslims will see this as how American politics treats Muslims and abandon our mainstream politics altogether–leading to a situation that France faces at some point in the future.

  7. anon said on 2 May 2007 at 8:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here is a press release from the AMC which explains exactly who Faisal Gill was in relation to their organization. Note that the AMC themselves say that Gill was thir Director of Government Affairs. This is only available as a cached version on zoominfo because the original AMC site is no more (they are now amcnational.org rather than amconline.org). Gill is referred to in other articles as a “spokesman”, but AMC actually identifies him as the Director of Government Affairs.

    Rep. Cooksey Retracts His Remarks
    (WASHINGTON, DC - 9/21/2001) The American Muslim Council’s Executive Director Aly Abuzaakouk and Director of Government Affairs Faisal Gill held a meeting with Rep John Cooksey (R-LA) this afternoon. AMC commends Rep. Cooksey’s leadership because he took responsibility for his actions promptly and expressed regret for what was said earlier this week.

    At the meeting, Rep. Cooksey withdrew his remarks, explained that the words he used at the radio show were poorly chosen and expressed his resentment for making them. He clarified that he was not describing American Muslims or Arab-Americans but instead he was trying to describe Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist associates.

    In his written statement, Rep. Cooksey stated:
    “I would like to respond to criticism of a recent statement made in regard to airport and aviation security after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. I regret my choice of words and in no way do I condone irrational attacks against people of Arabic ancestry.”

    At the end of the meeting, Rep. Cooksey assured his commitment that every American should feel safe regardless of ethnic or religious background and offered his assistance to the American Muslim and Arab-American communities.

    American Muslim Council urges members of the American Muslim community to write, fax, or e-mail Rep. Cooksey to express their appreciation for this prompt response in dealing with this matter. AMC is convinced that Rep. Cooksey did not intentionally mean any harm to American Muslims or Arab-Americans.

  8. Greg L said on 2 May 2007 at 8:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Faisal Gill worked for the AMC and the Islamic Institute at the height of their political shenanigans, and actively participated in political activities supporting Sami Al-Arian. This isn’t guilt by association, although those associations run long and deep, it’s guilt by participation. His claim of ignorance here is specious, and even if true it would display a shocking level of political tone-deafness that is not at all becoming to a political candidate. If he could inadvertently get himself caught up with two convicted terrorists, apparently have ties with the Safa Group, and have islamic clerics doing fundraising for him, how far does this have to go before people start questioning what in the heck is going on here?

    He chose to associate with, and work on the behalf of islamists such as his current law partners Asim Ghafoor and Todd Gallinger. Chris, there’s even more here I haven’t had the time to fully work through, but hope to discuss soon. The volume of material regarding his past efforts in association with and on behalf of islamic radicals is huge, and sorting through it is a daunting task.

    Probably what this speaks to best is a shocking lack of judgment. He failed to perform, or even show up, as PWCRC Vice-Chair. He drives the taxpayer alliance into the ground. He takes campaign photos of himself in uniform when it’s against regulations. He fails to maintain fitness standards required of those serving in the armed forces. He lies to Jim Young about the results of a Virgina Bar investigation into complaints about how he practices law. He misleads Milt Johns in order to get his endorsement, and then continues to use that endorsement after it’s been withdrawn. He trashes Steve Chapman with the worst excuse in history for his failure to file for the ‘06 convention in the 50th district in the Potomac News…

    Just what is it that makes anyone think this guy has any business whatsoever in elected office other than his ability to adequately mouth conservative talking points on demand? It’s pathetic he would be taken seriously by anyone.

  9. Anonymous said on 2 May 2007 at 8:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I did not have one. [a relationship with Alamoudi]”

    “I would set up meeting, prepare briefings and attend the meetings. All that was not done at the direction of Alamoudi. ”

    ??????? does he or does he not have a relationship??????

    What kind of doubletalk is this?

  10. Jonathan Mark said on 2 May 2007 at 8:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"If he was a lawyer”"”

    Gill does not claim that he did legal work at the AMC. He calls himself their spokesman and describes lobbying work he did on their behalf. Many if not spokespersons and lobbyist are non-lawyers, although some are. Gill did not do legal work at the AMC or if he did he has not told anyone that he did.

    Let’s try and keep our rationalizations of Gill’s behavior fact-based.

    “”"who wasn’t working at AMC all that long,”"”

    That is what we are trying to find out, when did Gill first get paid to work for the American Muslim Council, and when did he last get paid by them. No one will give us a straight answer. Gill is ashamed.

    “”"its not that hard to conceive that he didn’t know the inner-workings of the organization.”"”

    I don’t care if he knew the inner workings of the organization or not. He knew or had reason to know that it was a radical organization founded, headed and led by the Hamas support and imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    “”"I don’t think we can necessarily hold Gill personally responsible for the actions of the very top of that Organization.”"”

    I hold him responsible for going to work for the AMC which was a radical organization that in the aftermath of 9-11 told American Muslim not to talk to the FBI.

    “”"In fact, it makes sense that he wouldn’t know.”"”

    Know what? That Abdurahman Alamoudi was the founder, funder and leader of the American Muslim Council? Gill knew. He didn’t care.

    “”"Why would AMC higher-ups who were engaged in this even want their spokesman, lawyer, and congressional lobbyist to know about it.”"”

    Know about what? Alamoudi went on national television three times in 2000 and announced his support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Gill was the AMC lobbyist. How could he not know? It was his job to know. He had to represent the AMC as their chief lobbyist.

    “”"Nixon once called it “plausable deniability” the way he kept the likes of Ron Zeigler out of the loop.”"”

    But Zeigler knew, just as Gill knows.

    “”"From what I can tell, a lot of this seems to be guilt by association.”"”

    As Greg says, it’s guilt by participation. I call it guilt by employment

    “”"So and so did this, so Gill either believes it or somehow endorses it.”"”

    Gill was the AMCs chief lobbyist. It was his job to endorse their positions. Alamoudi, by the way, stated in 2000 that the AMC opposed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and that the AMC were the ones who went to the White House to defend Hamas.

    Gill was their chief lobbyist. It doesn’t matter if Gill disagreed with what he was being paid to sell. Gill’s job as chief lobbyist was to build up the prestige and influence the AMC, and if he wasn’t doing so then the AMC would have fired him.

    “”"You talk about all the sins fo Alamoudi and Rap Brown (???), and somehow Gill is responsible for it?”"”"

    Gill is in part responsible for the sins of the AMC because he worked as their chief lobbyist. In early 2001 the head of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, had Alamoudi ejected from an AAI banquet because of Alamoudi’s radicalism. Gill did the opposite. He worked for Alamoudi’s organization.

    Why cannot you admit that Gill acted wrongly in working for the AMC?

    “”"Gill’s work at AMC, from what he said,”"”

    From what he said. But at least one statement he said is false. He claims that he only worked at the AMC for a few months. You yourself said it was a year. How long was it?

    “”"was to help bring mainstream Muslim’s into the mainstream of American political life.”"”

    The AMC told Moslems in the aftermath of 9-11 not to talk to the FBI. Is not talking to the FBI, which was trying to solve the murder of 3000 Americans, part of the mainstream of American life? Maybe if you are Tony Soprano.

    “”"He should be proud of that,”"”

    Gill should be ashamed of having worked for the AMC.

    “”"because if we don’t have people like Gill”"”

    People like Gill? What does that mean?

    “”"attempting to get Muslims into political life,”"”

    The problem is the kind of radical politics, led by a criminal, that Gill was attempting to ensnare people into.

    “”"we end up like France were angry Muslim immigrants,”"”

    Don’t threaten me about what will happen if we don’t send Gill to Richmond.

    “”"denied access into mainstream life,”"”

    Gill lives better than I do. He gave Bolling $14,000. Spare me the sob story about the poor immigrants who riot if we don’t send Gill to Richmond.

    “”"grow poor and angry–leading to riots.”"”

    Isn’t that a liberal argument? Injustice leads to riots? And what is the injustice in electing someone other than Gill to HOD-51. Unlike his opponent, Gill has never even held public office. He has an at best mediocre record of management skills, including forgetting to file papers for Steve Chapman whose campaign he was managing, knocking Chapman out of the race.

    Even without his baggage Gill would be a mediocre machine candidate, similar to the people the Democratic machine nominates in the 8th District where I live. With Gill’s AMC baggage I think the guy is hopeless. You can nominate him, but you cannot send him to Richmond.

    “”"Its not fair to assume you know he’s lying about that without proof, testimony, or evidence to the contrary.”"”

    I know Gill is lying when he says that he only worked for the AMC for a few months, and you know it also, because you sayt that Gill worked for the AMC for about one year.

    “”"I understand EVERYTHING your saying about AMC. But Faisal Gill worked their for just about or around a year -”"”

    There you have it. Faisal Gill lied when he told Mason Conservative that he had only worked for the AMC for a few months. What else do you think Gill is lying about? What else is he not telling you?

    “”"I’m not defending the AMC, but I worry that if the GOP runs Gill out on a rail”"”

    Thank him for his loyal devoted service and offer to make him vice-chair of the PWC again and in charge of the PWCRCs jihadist outreach program. He can visit his old lobbying client Abdurahman Alamoudi in jail. I don’t care what Gill does.

    “”"we Republicans/conservative will lose a precious chance to reach out to mainstream, law-abiding Muslims.”"”

    Given the demographics of 2007 you will alienate more people than you attract if Gill is your candidate. You are alienating them already. Read this blog.

    “”"I fear that political rejection based on the actions of a few will either a) move them forever into the Democratic camp, and in NOVA Repubs need every new voter we can get,”"”

    For any vote Gill got you the PWCRC will lose two. But find out. Nominate him and see who goes to Richmond in November.

    “”"and b) young Muslims will see this as how American politics treats Muslims and abandon our mainstream politics altogether–leading to a situation that France faces at some point in the future.”"”

    France is ten percent Moslem, America a fraction of that, perhaps two percent. If you are concerned about America becoming like France you can oppose immigration instead of nominating Faisal Gill.

  11. Loudoun Insider said on 2 May 2007 at 9:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark is one tenacious commenter!

    I continue to be amazed that Gill is still in this race.

  12. Greg L said on 2 May 2007 at 9:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Isn’t it something when a candidate upsets a group of bloggers to the extent they then engage in nonstop opposition research for months in order to be able to fully inform the public about him?

    And the best part of this is that there’s more to come.

  13. James Young said on 2 May 2007 at 9:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Given that he’s trying to win a judgment against you on behalf of a client, Greg, it’s not “something” at all. As for Jonathan Mark, he’s a Democrat, and quite possibly a racist, too. Again, nothing surprising here.

  14. Anonymous said on 2 May 2007 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    You people just don’t get it. The Republican Party will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS nominate a Muslim named “Faisal” to any office. The white-power/Christianist/anti-immigrant hooligans who dominate the GOP grassroots will make sure that no Muslim ever gets a GOP nod for anything for fear that we’ll all one day be chanting “In Moo-hammed We Trust”. Faisal, it’s been nice knowin’ ya, but you’re toast.

  15. Greg L said on 2 May 2007 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Boy it didn’t take long for the folks to show up and start screaming bigotry again. Aren’t you the same folks that said Republicans won’t tolerate african-americans in positions of power immediately after George Bush appointed the greatest number of minorities to cabinet positions of any president in history?

    I’m sure it’s much easier for you to keep whining about racism and bigotry. Too bad after that goofiness is stripped away, you’ve got nothing left to argue.

  16. anon said on 2 May 2007 at 11:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    We have to wonder what type of conservative Gill is, if at all.

    During world war II, Italian Americans, German Americans, Japanese Americans went out of their way to show how patriotic they were. They didn’t hide behind lawyers and say they would not talk to the FBI.

    They put up American flags and went out of their way to support the American troops.

  17. Your neighbor said on 2 May 2007 at 11:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jim, you’ve gone too far. If Greg won’t jump in here I will. How dare you call Jonathon Mark a racist when clearly he is doing nothing but presenting cold hard facts to help educate and promote awareness of a threat that exists in our very own backyard. The hatred for Jews and Christians within the Muslim culture is very real and very much a threat to American society.

    What is it going to take for some PW GOP’s to stopping blaming everyone else for their own bad judgement in supporting a candidate that is a horrible embarrassment?

  18. Anonymous said on 2 May 2007 at 11:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    C’mon, let’s get real about this. First of all Greg, you’re the one that really keeps playing the racism card here. There are a series of very lengthy posts here, especially by your democrat-ish co-obsessive when it comes to Faisal Gill, Jonathan. Not until well after that does James in passing say that JM is possibly a racist (not completely beyond the pale give how frequently and virulently JM has attacked Faisal in the past). Then you start in with “boy, it didn’t take long . . . .” Well, it sure did take a long time, in fact, just to read through your and Jonathan’s posts. So your comment on that point seems bogus and planned. Next, part of the problem on all this is that you seem so obsessed with Gill that you keep bringing up stupid things like the weight gain being against military regulations, the Virginia Bar complaint, and the old Milt Johns endorsement. Hell, I know some really blubbery Army and Navy guys, any joker can file a Bar complaint with virtual impunity regardless of its merits, and you botched the whole Milt Johns thing by writing authoritatively about for so long before you even attempted to contact Johns to ask for the facts. I’m a Republican who doesn’t like Faisal and wants Julie Lucas to win, but your stuff is really working against us because you are ticking off so many Republicans by not sticking to the facts. There is plenty to hang Gill on. Don’t make people feel sorry for him by hitting on these bs little things like his weight.

  19. charles said on 2 May 2007 at 11:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    While JM was throwing around baseless allegations and speculating about things, Chris did a simple thing, sent questions, and got answers. Maybe Greg can’t because he isn’t allowed to speak to opposing counsel, but JM certainly knows how to use e-mail.

    I see Greg has finally provided a “name” for his so-called investigation. I asked Greg a month ago to give me ANY evidence at all for his charge, and he refuses, and now he’s given the name of a person who isn’t actually working. Meanwhile, there is no formal investigation, Faisal did NOT do what Greg again claims he did, and the evidence is ignored for sheer speculation. I already told Greg the pictures he insists were campaign pictures were NOT campaign pictures, but he continues to claim otherwise. Again, maybe he can’t just ask to see the pictures for himself because he can’t talk to Gill, but that’s no excuse for making false claims about them.

    I had some answers from Gill I got from e-mail, but decided not to bother posting because I knew answers was the last thing people here wanted.

    Gill answers, but JM and Greg will ignore it and pretend it never happened. But hopefully sane people will begin to see how easy it is to construct a smear with just enough “evidence” to make it seem plausible.

    Like Greg’s link to an article that has Gill mentioning the son of a person who ended up being a terorrist, along with the “political activities of his father”, and somehow spinning that into proof that Gill knew what his father was up to.

    Believe me Greg, if it was that easy, we wouldn’t be spending so much money tracking down the terrorists.

    I won’t bother to answer any other allegations being thrown around here, it’s a pointless effort that would be unappreciated by those here anyway who have NO interest in answers (as proven by their refusal to actually ASK Gill any of these questions).

    Next time Greg raises another one “questionable thing” regarding Gill, just remember that he “questioned” Gill’s giving the committee $750 for an event “that I can’t find any record of having happened” and for which “members of the committee weren’t invited.” Even though it was explained politely (By a Lucas Supporter) that the money was for the Lincoln/Reagan dinner, Greg refuses to edit his post to take out the insinuation of wrong-doing.

    See it for yourself .

    The only hole being dug by Gill is the grave for the baseless, unsupported accusations of the blogger who is being sued for slander, and his buddy JM who can’t seem to get past 2001.

  20. charles said on 3 May 2007 at 12:03 am:
    Flag comment

    BTW, to show how this works. Here’s what Greg says:

    update on the investigation LCDR Luciano said has been undertaken.

    The Charge was that Gill was “under investigation”. But it could well be that, in response to a vocal complaint about “violations of the campaign rules”, a LCDR might “investigate” the complaint. Said investigation would NOT be an investigation of the PERSON, but of the COMPLAINT being filed.

    So, she might get the campaign literature (which one assumes Greg or JM or SOMEONE else sent her), look it over, send it past the lawyers to see what they think.

    If there was concern, the next step would be to call the serviceperson and ask for additional information (such as whether the pictures were taken for the literature as claimed, or were family photos which they are). Gill says that has not happened, so if there is an investigation it isn’t a very active one.

    Note that Gill is himself a JAG officer. It’s likely the military will take the CHARGE seriously. Of course, if nothing comes of this the Gill haters will claim another investigation was “swept under the rug for him”.

  21. Greg L said on 3 May 2007 at 12:05 am:
    Flag comment

    What, are you my editor now? Don’t act surprised when I don’t react to your demands as if I am your employee.

    As for this wild speculation for how the JAG works, and what the status is the chief of the JAG branch that oversees professional responsibility questions, you are desperately grasping at straws and doing nothing but demonstrate incompetence here. Why the hell would the senior JAG officer for professional responsibility have to run anything “by the lawyers” when this person is the chief lawyer for an administrative law division? The desperation here is remarkable.

  22. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 3:15 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"he’s a Democrat, and quite possibly a racist, too.”"”

    This is a constant theme in James Young’s postings. If you oppose Gill then you are a racist. How is that any different than what Al Sharpton does on the other side?

  23. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 3:22 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Maybe Greg can’t because he isn’t allowed to speak to opposing counsel, but JM certainly knows how to use e-mail.”"”

    That is the point. I want to avoid private contact with Gill which he could then misrepresent.

    Gill is not opposing counsel to me…yet.

  24. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 3:25 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Believe me Greg, if it was that easy, we wouldn’t be spending so much money tracking down the terrorists.”"”

    One reason tracking down terrorists is so difficult and expensive is that some people don’t tell the FBI what they know. Gill was the chief lobbyist for the terrorist-led American Muslim Council in the aftermath of 9-11, when the AMC told American Muslims not to talk to the FBI.

  25. James Young said on 3 May 2007 at 9:49 am:
    Flag comment

    You see, JM, that’s one reason why the rational (or those without another agenda) utterly reject your rantings: “This is a constant theme in James Young’s postings.”

    Constant? Hardly, It’s something I’ve noted about you on two, or perhaps three, occasions. I’ve no doubt that there are plenty of people of good will who support Julie’s candidacy and can do so without relying upon the cheap-shot, hate campaign of innuendo in which you are engaged, a campaign which — when considered in light of the fact that the allegations you constantly repeat have been investigated, and produced nothing — must be rooted in something other than cold, rational consideration of the facts. Bigotry seems the most likely explanation.

    As for Greg’s comment that “Boy it didn’t take long for the folks to show up and start screaming bigotry again,” asking “Aren’t you the same folks that said Republicans won’t tolerate african-americans in positions of power immediately after George Bush appointed the greatest number of minorities to cabinet positions of any president in history?” No, Greg, I wasn’t, and the silliness of that question as applied to me should be obvious even to you. I am loathe to make such an accusation, except where it is justified. I wouldn’t make it regarding you, since we all know the roots of your emnity. With JM, it seems to be the most logical explanation.

    As for Greg’s post-midnight comment to Charles, it is indeed ironic that he would admonish Charles that he shouldn’t “act surprised when [Greg] do[es]n’t react to [his] demands as if [he were Charles’] employee,” and insists elsewhere that Faisal should respond to specious charges contrived of innuendo and matters which have been investigated and of which he has been cleared of wrongdoing.

    “Your neighbor” observes that “The hatred for Jews and Christians within the Muslim culture is very real and very much a threat to American society.” That seems to me to be precisely the kind of attitude to which these much-investigated, specious allegations are designed to appeal. And if that isn’t racism or anti-Muslim bigotry, particularly when applied to a man who has worn a Navy uniform and served his country, then I don’t know what is. Maybe it’s just a crude, craven appeal to racism and/or bigotry, though perhaps not racism or bigotry itself. I suppose there’s a distinction there, but not a significant one.

    This nation has a large and growing population of Muslim immigrants. If we don’t appeal to and assimilate them into our culture on the theory that “The hatred for Jews and Christians within the Muslim culture is very real and very much a threat to American society,” then the only logical alternatives are suppression or expulsion. And if that is what you are advocating, then we might as well drop the pretense and declare the Crusade now, because there obviously are no “moderate” Muslims with which to deal.

    Anon 10:45, of course, represents the far Left’s caricature of the GOP. It’s too bad that he/she finds so much evidence of it in threads like this one.

  26. Batson D. Belfrey said on 3 May 2007 at 10:15 am:
    Flag comment

    “While JM was throwing around baseless allegations …”

    I see a lot of basis to these allegations. A lot of people do. There’s just too much there to be ignored.

  27. Austin said on 3 May 2007 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Ignoring all of the rantings about Faisal. Julie is just plain the better candidate. She is intelligent and well spoken, as well as a successful small business owner. There is a clear difference in the qualifications and the positions of the candidates and Julie is the superior and more electable person.

  28. freedom said on 3 May 2007 at 10:51 am:
    Flag comment

    Faisal Gill’s employment history and association with unsavory/imprisoned characters has been severely questioned. Is it all true? He denies it and his defenders call it a “smear.” Nonetheless, it is undeniable that his history has raised serious questions in many circles, not just this blog.

    With respect to his involvement in various public and respected organizations you continually hear (from those in a position to know) that he couldn’t be relied upon to attend meetings, he couldn’t be relied up to follow-through on commitments, and that he generally failed to tend to the business of his position. That too may be a “smear,” I don’t know, but it certainly raises even more questions.

    More recently, the propriety, if not the legality of his campaign materials, highlighting his military uniform, have been drawn into question, and finally, a serious record of repeated driving law violations has come to light.

    The only defense of Faisal Gill that I have seen is that “it’s a smear”…or “…you’re a racist”… or “it’s possible he didn’t know”… or “you don’t have proof.” The question is NOT if he should or should not be convicted. Voters must make judgments and the question is “Should we nominate a man of this character to serve in our Virginia state legislature”?

    What I have yet to see is a viable explanation as to why Faisal Gill is SO IMPORTANT to the Republican party and SO IMPORTANT to the Virginia HOD that his highly questionable and in some cases outright sordid behavior, should be overlooked. Can someone please explain that?

  29. charles said on 3 May 2007 at 11:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I don’t expect you do to the right thing because I tell you to, I expect you to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

    Ethical bloggers remove baseless charges of wrongdoing from their posts when it is proven they are wrong.

    I was just giving your readers an example where you kept disproven charges in a post days after you acknowledged they were baseless.

    There’s no point in Gill providing you the facts — A person listed as a Lucas Supporter on the Lucas Web site gave you facts, and you did nothing.

    As to “desperately grasping at straws”, I have no dog in the hunt, it wouldn’t effect me at all if you actually had a real charge against Gill. I don’t work for him, I haven’t endorsed him, I’m not in the district. My only purpose here is to defend a fellow republican against baseless attacks.

    You are the one who claimed there was an investigation but refused to provide ANY information at all to allow independent verification of your claim. Even now the only name you have given is a person who obviously is NOT investigating anything because they are on maternity leave. That’s some investigation.

    When nothing is done, when no charges are brought, I’m sure you’ll note that you never SAID the charges were true, or that the investigation would find anything. The rest of us like to hold off on calling people law-breakers until there is actual evidence FROM an investigation.

  30. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 11:08 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"the allegations you constantly repeat have been investigated,”"”

    A security clearance is not supposed to be an investigation of whether
    someone supported moderate or extreme policies. It is an investigation of whether someone is likely to betray classified information, which is a different concept.

    Faisal’s boss Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder, leader and funder of Faisal’s employer the American Muslim Council, stated in 2000 that the AMC opposed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and had gone to the White House and supported Hamas.

    Now Faisal Gill was the chief lobbyist for the AMC, probably in 2000 as well as 2001. Gill won’t say the start and end dates of when he worked there, and Gill falsely claims that he was only at the AMC for a few months.

    Would the government have investigated whether Faisal Gill as chief lobbyist for the AMC went to the White House and supported Hamas, as Alamoudi says the AMC did? I doubt it.

    Even if Gill in fact lobbied for Hamas such lobbying would have been legal. (Funding Hamas is illegal, but no one is suggesting Gill did so.)

    Unless someone could show that having lobbied the White House for Hamas meant that Gill would sell classified information there would have been no reason for the security clearance people to investigate it. Maybe they did anyway. We don’t know what they found.

    When considering who to vote for in HOD-51 people should consider whether one of the candidates has a history of being the chief lobbyist for an extremist organization, the American Muslim Council, headed by an imprisoned terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    People should consider whether one of the candidates is evasive about when he worked for the extremist organization and what he did. Gill says he only worked for the AMC for a few months but the chronology he provides, stating that Alamoudi was on the AMC board at the time, is inconsistent with Gill’s claim.

    Gill mentions working to set up a conference for the AMC and inviting politicians. I have reason to believe that the conference was the June 2001 AMC national convention at which Rep. Jim Moran spoke.

    I quoted Moran’s remarks at the top of this thread, and show that in his June 2001 remarks Moran repeatedly addressed Alamoudi as if Alamoudi were the head of the AMC. Moran mentioned discussing with Alamoudi what Moran should say.

    Moran’s remarks at the 2001 National AMC convention fly in the face of Gill’s disavowal of working with or for Alamoudi.

  31. Batson D. Belfrey said on 3 May 2007 at 11:58 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ll have to agree with Austin here. I believe that Lucas is the superior candidate. She has served in an elected office. She is smart, articulate, and hardworking. She is a successful small business owner. She has been associated with the campaigns of solid conservative candidates. She is a loyal Republican who I know for a fact door-knocked for all Republican candidates last November, because she came to my district, stumping for Stewart, Allen, and Wolf. She has a solid grasp of the issues that matter to me, and is on what I consider to be the right side of these issues. Gill spends a lot of time talking about transportation as his #1 issue. With the passage of the less-than-perfect transportation package, I no longer see this as the most pressing issue for the 51st, or NoVa. I see illegal immigration as the most pressing issue. Gill’s defense of those facing deportation for immigration violations or some other criminal activity leads me to believe that Gill would be soft on illegal immigration.

    I will also look at this from the “pure electability” standpoint. In a face-off against any Democrat, Lucas is a formidable candidate. She doesn’t have any negatives that I can see, that the Democrats can attack or leverage. Gill cannot say the same.

    About the only thing I see that Gill has over Lucas is money, and he seems to like to spread it around. That’s it. The source of some of this money concerns me. It concerns me a great deal.

    So, putting all of the AMC, UCMJ and moving violations aside, Gill is still the weaker candidate, as far as I am concerned.

  32. freedom said on 3 May 2007 at 12:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK James, Charles, et al….why don’t you just breathe, relax, and take the offense re Faisal Gill for a moment. Please explain, why a voter should overlook those issues which plague Faisal Gill (and you consider to be baseless or insignificant) and place HIM in the Virginia HOD in lieu of another candidate wiithout those “issues”? I would honestly like to know his strengths of overriding importance…plus, it would be a positive step toward helping your candidate.

  33. AWCheney said on 3 May 2007 at 12:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Excellent point Freedom…I wonder if they’ll actually respond to a reasonable challenge?

  34. James Young said on 3 May 2007 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, Austin, if you’re willing to “Ignor[e] all of the rantings about Faisal,” virtually everything you say about Julie (”intelligent”; “well spoken”; “successful small business owner” [a private law practice is a small business]) is also true of Faisal. Add to that the fact that Faisal has served in the military (OK, Julie’s a girl,and I’ll still make that distinction, PC be damned), and has held a presidential appointment. OK, so Julie has been elected to the School Board, virtually the only “clear difference in the qualifications” of the candidates. Service on the School Board is not enough to make the difference, in my mind. Without knowing anything else, the only thing that such a credential tells us is that Julie has been busily spending the money for which other politicians must take the responsibility of raising. Julie has done a solid job, to be sure, but has she distinguished herself by leading on any issue? School choice or vouchers, perhaps? Making Family Life Education opt-in, rather than opt-out? Has she led in efforts to reduce the bloated bureaucracy? To get a higher percentage of dollars in the classroom? Will she stand up against the effort, publicized today, to hold a bilingual graduation ceremony at Freedom High Schoo?

    What is the difference in “the positions of the candidates,” I wonder? Nothing that has been discussed here. I suspect that Faisal is more trustworthy and dependable on the issue of taxes and spending, because he has actually taken a stand in the past. Julie has, in the past, supported tax increaser (and turncoat) Buck Waters over Scott Lingamfelter in a GOP primary, though she attributes that to having worked with Waters on the 2000 Bush campaign (and I have no reason to doubt her as to her identified motivation). If you, “Batson,” call someone like Buck Waters (who publicly endorsed Democrat David Brickley in 2005) a “solid conservative candidate[],” then your standards on that issue are somewhat different than mine. The fact that she didn’t endorse Lucy Beauchamp is certainly one in the “Favorable” column for her, but neither did she endorse Michele McQuigg for Clerk (at least, she’s not listed on the endorsements page of her website). Odd, for someone who wants to hold her seat.

    Austin says “Julie is the superior and more electable person,” and that is certainly a question over which reasonable minds may differ, but I’m wondering if drawing that conclusion doesn’t reward, perhaps even just unconsciously, the smear campaign waged here. Certainly, “Batson” is suggesting that the voters should.

    I, for one, don’t sit idly by when Democrats smear Republicans. I certainly won’t do so when those unverifiably claiming to be Republicans (most of those who aren’t anonymous have other agendas) smear other Republicans, in league with at least one Democrat (JM). The very fact that you do so in league with a Democrat should at least give you pause.

  35. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 1:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    A gullible True Faisal Believer earlier in this thread asserted that the American Muslim Council was a civil rights organization and that Faisal should be proud to have worked for them.

    I just found this excellent 3/13/96 Wall Street Journal article by Steven Emerson, the producer of the PBS documentary Jihad in America.

    What this article shows is that when Gill started working as chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council it had already been common knowledge for years that the AMC was a radical group, that many Muslims recognized it as a radical group, and that evidence of the AMC’s support for terrorism was recognized in some of the foremost conservative publications, including the Wall Street Journal.

    Gill cannot plausibly claim as the AMCs chief lobbyist to have been ignorant of the organizations activities and positions. They were public knowledge.

    Gill is fooling the gullible. Still there are those, such as Charles and James Young, who steadfastly refuse to waiver, and hurl baseless charges of prejudice against Gill’s many critics. Is the whole world prejudiced against Moslems then, and only the PWCRC Kopko machine is not? Is Michelle Malkin (the author of “Who Is Faisal Gill?”) prejudiced? The Wall Street journal?

    Either we are dealing with a massive disinformation campaign by anti-Muslim bigots aimed at a fairly insignificant would-be Republican nominee, or Gill actually was the chief lobbyist for an extremist pro-jihad group whose leader is now in jail. The evidence favors the latter theory.

    Here are the highlights of Emerson’s article:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/527616/posts

    “”"
    Friends of Hamas in the White House
    Wall Street Journal | March 13, 1996 | Steven Emerson

    Page A14

    In response to the terrorist carnage committed by Hamas in Israel, President Clinton has organized an anti-terrorist summit in Egypt to begin today. But other participants at the conference, and the American public as well, might be a bit surprised to learn that both the president and first lady have closely embraced an Islamic fundamentalist group in the U.S. that champions and supports Hamas. This group also openly supports, lobbies for, and defends other Islamic terrorist groups.

    The contacts between the White House and the Islamic radicals began on Nov. 9, 1995, when President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore met with Abdulrahman Alamoudi, executive director of the American Muslim Council, as part of a meeting with 23 Muslim and Arab leaders. A month later, on Dec. 8, Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, Anthony Lake, met with Mr. Alamoudi at the White House along with several AMC board members and other American Islamic leaders. By Feb. 20, Mrs. Clinton was allowing the AMC to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s historic White House reception marking the end of Ramadan.

    One person familiar with the situation says that Mrs. Clinton’s syndicated newspaper column of Feb. 8, “Islam in America,” was based on “talking points” provided by the AMC.

    “The American Muslim Council is a radical group that supports radical Islamic terrorist movements,” says Seif Ashmawy, the American Muslim publisher of the Voice of Peace in New Jersey. “I am shocked and outraged that the White House would embrace them. As someone who has put his life on the line for peace, and as someone who has been willing to unequivocally condemn militant Islamic groups, I feel totally betrayed by the Clinton administration.”

    A detailed investigation of public records, international Islamic publications, intelligence material collected by law enforcement, and proceedings of various Islamic conferences shows AMC’s consistent record of support for radical Islamic groups. Most glaring are the ties between the AMC and Hamas. In public interviews given during the last two years, Mr. Alamoudi has repeatedly asserted that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. At an April 1995 press conference denouncing the Clinton administration’s proposed counter-terrorism legislation, Mr. Alamoudi angrily dismissed suggestions that Hamas was a terrorist group. That same month, in AMC’s monthly newsletter, AMC president M.A. Cheema declared, “Yasir Arafat does not represent the Palestinian any longer. Palestinians are now following Hamas. Israel must talk to Hamas.”

    Months later, Mr. Alamoudi emerged as the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzuq, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads, whose handiwork was seen in the last three weeks in Israel. Immediately following an October 1994 attack in which Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire in a crowded downtown Jerusalem mall, Mr. Marzuq took credit for the attack on behalf of Hamas. He told the Beirut publication al-Ahd that “martyrdom is the goal of every Muslim,and death represents the ideal wish of the mujahid [holy warrior] of the land of Palestine.”

    Less than three days after Mr. Marzuq’s arrest by the FBI in July 1995, Mr. Alamoudi of the AMC came to his defense. Asserting that Mr. Marzuq had never been involved in terrorism, Mr. Alamoudi declared that his arrest was a “insult to the Muslim community.” According to U.S. law enforcement officials, Mr. Alamoudi has elicited contributions for Mr. Marzuq’s defense fund. He’s also demanded that the Clinton administration release Mr. Marzuq, whom he described to a reporter as a “political prisoner.”…

    …And the AMC has co-sponsored several conferences and events in the U.S. with the United Association for Studies and Research. Founded by Mr. Marzuq in 1989, the United Association serves as Hamas’s support arm in the U.S. Now located in Northern Virginia, the group has published books (in Arabic) calling for the annihilation of Jews. Moreover, telephone records subpoenaed for the World Trade Center trial show that the United Association’s officials were in contact with Mohammed Saleh, a Hamas official who was convicted for his role in the World Trade Center conspiracy. In one 1993 conference jointly sponsored by the AMC and the United Association in Washington, Mr. Alamoudi even extended a warm introduction to the United Association’s director, Ahmed bin Yusef, one of Hamas’s chief ideologues who has called for the destruction of Israel.

    AMC’s links to radicalism don’t end with Hamas. It has also arranged U.S. press conferences and visits for Islamic militants from Jordan’s Islamic Action Front and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In December 1995, AMC issued public congratulations to Turkey’s radical Islamic Refah party following its electoral success. The Refah party has campaigned against Zionist-Jewish conspiracies and labeled the U.S. an enemy of all Muslims.

    In addition, the AMC has established a special relationship with the Sudanese government of Hasan Al-Turabi, who has made his country an international training ground for Islamic terrorists. In 1992, AMC boasted in its newsletter that the group had “planned a highly successful visit for Hasan Al-Turabi from the Sudan.” In April 1994, almost a year after Sudan was officially designated a terrorist regime by the State Department, the AMC, together with another Hamas front group known as the Council on American Islamic Relations, co-hosted a press conference for the Sudanese foreign minister in the U.S.

    The AMC has dismissed any allegation that it collaborates with known terrorist groups, claiming that it has issued statements condemning terrorist attacks like the recent suicide bombings in Israel. Yet the AMC statement doesn’t mention Hamas. In fact, a review of AMC statements condemning earlier Islamic terrorist attacks reveals that the AMC has never criticized by name any Islamic terrorist group. “If you aren’t willing to name the group that did the bombing,” says former FBI official Oliver Revell, “your statement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”

    Far from joining the anti-terrorist fight, the AMC makes excuses for Islamic terrorists. After the conviction of the World Trade Center bombers, Mr. Alamoudi wrote in his newsletter that the prosecutor “went out of his way to punish the defendants harshly and with vengeance, and to a large extent because they were Muslim.”

    AMC’s tactic of claiming anti-Muslim racism rather than acknowledging the existence of Islamic extremism deliberately serves to silence criticism of terrorists.

    ….

    The president is right to invite Muslim groups to the White House. But by inviting the extremist element of the American Muslim community — represented by the AMC — the administration undercuts moderate Muslims and strengthens the groups committing terrorist attacks. “I would give my life for this country,” says Seif Ashmawy of the Voice of Peace, “but if the president of the United States plays ball with terrorists, then what’s the use?”

    Mr. Emerson was the producer of the PBS documentary “Jihad in America.”
    “”"

    Looked at a decade later, Emersons’ article is prescient. Abu Marzuk, after steadfastly denying Hamas links, was deported, resurfaced in Syria where he is today a spokesperson for…Hamas! And Gill’s boss or client Abdurahman Alamoudi, well, Alamoudi doesn’t visit the White House much anymore. He is serving a 23-year federal sentence for laundering Libyan money.

    All of this makes it certain that Faisal Gill knew the controversial nature of the AMC when he went to work there as its chief lobbyist. As a moderate Moslem, Seif Ashmawy, said “I would give my life for this country, but if the president of the United States plays ball with terrorists, then what’s the use?”

    If the PWCRC plays ball with terrorists and terrorists’s chief lobbyist then what is the use of having a PWCRC. Kopko, Cuccinelli, Bolling, Lingamfelter and Stewart are a disgrace. They must reexamine their endorsements of the Terror Lobbyist Gill and retract them.

  36. George said on 3 May 2007 at 3:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg -

    It looks like your friend Jad Sarsour started a PAC in April 2007:
    Virginians for a Conservative Majority

    http://www.vpap.org/donors/pac_soo.cfm?ComID=07-026&FmKey=ORP000246453

  37. John Light said on 3 May 2007 at 3:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    What has Julie done while on the school board to represent Conservatives? Well, here are just a FEW things to consider:

    1. Changed School Board policy to allow home school and private school students to attend up to 2 credit bearing courses. When this action was taken Julie, Milt Johns and Don Richardson lead the charge to change this policy and to allow home school and private school students also ride the bus to and from school as their schedule would permit.

    2. Increased parental involvement with the approval of new textbooks. Now school board members appoint parents from their districts to the committees that decide was new books our students will have.

    3. Helped to start the pilot on abstinence programs at our middle schools. Julie met with a representative from the K.I.S.S.N. program and encouraged her fellow board members to support this program.

    4. Helped change PWC policy so parents sign permission slips with regard to student participation in clubs.

    5. As Vice Chairman and Policy Committee Chairman reopened the discussion about PWC’s current Charter School policy to make changes to ensure a more customer service process and a more open process.

    5. Helped her own GOP Chairman, Tom Kopko, when he was concerned that the author of Heather has Two Mommies was going to be speaking at one of our PWC Elementary schools (but on another topic), Julie took immediate action to ensure parents were given the opportunity to “opt out” of the event and wanted to go further with this issue, but was faced with very little time to even address the issue, but still took swift action and tremendous “heat” from Dr. Kelly with this issue. She did not back down!!!!! Only after Julie Lucas raised concern did Dr. Kelly agree to allow an “opt out” form. This action alone shows her true character as a VERY strong Conservative who stands strong in what she believes.

    Hope that addresses any concern you may have Jim, about her Conservative actions taken on the Prince William County School Board!!!!!! and look forward to your support of her after she wins the Convention.

  38. James Young said on 3 May 2007 at 3:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, it’s about time somebody here had something substantively nice to say about Julie, rather than just trashing Faisal with innuendo, John.

    But don’t bet on a win for her. I suspect that this savaging of Faisal — particularly in light of the tacit approval of her non-cowardly supporters, i.e., those who post openly but have done nothing to condemn it — will cause a backlash.

  39. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 4:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"this savaging of Faisal”"”

    Some of us react strongly when a former chief lobbyist for a terrorist, a man who served a boss (Abdurahman Alamoudi) who said that the 1994 attack on the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires was a “worthy operation,” runs for office.

    It isn’t going to work, James Young. No matter how much Faisal dissembles he will never, not ever, explain away his work for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council. Faisal will never in his long life be elected to public office in Virginia, and nothing the Kopko machine does can change that.

    Greg refers to information about Gill that he tries to get out there when he has time. I attempt to warn people about Gill also. Maybe we will get information out there in time for Faisal to lose in June, maybe not.

    After June if Faisal is the nominee it will be a new ballgame. Julie’s funding is limited. The Dems want HOD-51 and for Faisal to run, and they will spend what they have to in order to get the story of Faisal Gill and Abdurahman Alamoudi out there.

    The Dems spent $300,000 in 2003 to help Mark Sickles (D), a pro-Moran hack, unseat the worthy incumbent delegate Tom Bolvin (R) in my Kingstowne district. They will spend the same to blast Gill, because control of the HOD is at stake. Dems will lose some votes if they nominate a homosexual, but Republicans will lose more if they nominate a former chief lobbyist for a terrorist.

    Indeed, there will be many Republicans who won’t buy the line that charges against Gill are “baseless” and a result of prejudice. You can read what they have to say right here on this blog. When a prospective candidate excites this kind of animosity among some in his own party then he cannot win.

  40. James Young said on 3 May 2007 at 4:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess, Jonathan, that Faisal has as much chance of persuading you as you have of persuading … well, anyone who can read that you are not a racist.

    I certainly hope your assets are well-protected, because if I were Faisal, I would almost certainly sue your a** off after all the dust on this has settled.

  41. Batson D. Belfrey said on 3 May 2007 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I certainly hope your assets are well-protected, because if I were Faisal, I would almost certainly sue your a** off after all the dust on this has settled.”

    James,

    While I don’t doubt for a second that Gill would love to sue, does he really have grounds? Everything that Mark has posted here has been pulled from verifiable sources. I haven’t seen anything that Gill could say that Mark “knew or should have knwn to be false”. Mark has cited where he gets the information, and even provided links for them as well. It’s not like Mark is saying that Gill personally funded Hamas. Just becuase you don’t like what someone says about you, it doesn’t mean you can win a lawsuit. Slander and Libel are very tough to prove, and are even tougher for public figures.

    I am assuming that if Gill were to win the nomination, and the Democrats come at him with the same information, that he will sue them as well?

    Gill is a declared candidate, and a public figure. He has little defense. He may file suit, just to harrass Mark, but I highly doubt he’d get anywhere.

  42. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 5:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"I guess, Jonathan, that Faisal has as much chance of persuading you as you have of persuading … well, anyone who can read that you are not a racist.”"”

    I don’t need to persuade anyone of anything about me. I am not running for office.

    “”"I certainly hope your assets are well-protected, because if I were Faisal, I would almost certainly sue your a** off after all the dust on this has settled.”"”

    I am sorry, but truth is an absolute defense against libel suits. If Gill wants to sue me for the harassment value of it all then fine. I will be waiting. I will attempt to call all of Gill’s endorsers to the stand, especially that snivelling rat Cuccinelli.

    I may even attempt to get Gill’s former employer/client Alamoudi temporarily released from jail so Alamoudi can testify also, preferably while wearing his orange jumpsuit and chains. Old associates Gill and Alamoudi can nod at each other as they pass in the hall.

    I wonder if Gill and Alamoudi ever imagined in their salad days that they would meet again under such conditions.

    We will have some fun.

  43. AWCheney said on 3 May 2007 at 8:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s funny how Young is always the first to suggest a lawsuit (MANY examples available)…think he’s considering going into private practice specializing in ambulance chasing, or similarly prestigious law?

  44. charles said on 3 May 2007 at 8:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t imagine Faisal is going to sue anybody about their ramblings on a blog, except possibly if their charges actually injure him with respect to his employment.

    JM, you can talk all you want about AMC. I’ve NEVER said a kind word about AMC, I’ve not discussed AMC, I have no interest in an argument over AMC. My argument has been that there is no evidence that anything Gill did as a consultant did ANYTHING to aid terrorists, that Gill had no way of knowing that people who were invited into the White House and were friends with congressmen were in fact aiding terrorists, connections which came to light after his assignment to them ended.

    We know his work was minor on their behalf, not in your mind but in actual work — as can be seen by the small amounts of money involved. You don’t get a lot for a few thousand bucks.

    He’s answered your allegations about his knowledge or involvement with the groups, and you didn’t like his answer so you are saying he’s lying about it. He can’t answer that, a man can only tell the truth, he can’t make people believe it.

    I am pleased that a few COMMENTERS have taken to discussing actual issues and qualifications. It’s too bad that Greg who runs the site has shown no interest in discussing those issues, but there is always hope that he will now.

    Faisal has an impressive resume. His detractors know that, and have worked hard to make that resume a liability. He was a successful consultant — so they claim he supported terrorists. He served and serves admirably for his country in the military — so they say he’s too fat to qualify, and that he broke rules with pictures in uniform. He has some good respected conservatives endorsing him — so they claim those people are ignorant of the truth about him. He’s a very successful lawyer — so they attack people he represented. He’s served in many positions of leadership, voted in by the people who needed the leadership — so they find malcontents to complain about how he did those tasks.

  45. James Young said on 3 May 2007 at 9:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, AWCheney, I’ll continue to practice in the area of civil rights, labor and constitutional law — representing individuals against abuses of compulsory unionism arrangements — for about as long as I can.

    Perhaps I’ll retire some day, though, and render sleazy political advice on the side, following the trail you’ve blazed. Maybe I’ll even be able to sic prosecutors on my political enemies; again, following the trail you’ve blazed.

    And while libel and slander is not my area of expertise — beyond a general knowledge of the limitations of New York Times v. Sulliven — I fear that “Batson” is correct. “Truth,” of course, need not even be the defense, since all JM offers is serial innuendo based on innocuous facts.

  46. Jonathan Mark said on 3 May 2007 at 10:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"JM, you can talk all you want about AMC. I’ve NEVER said a kind word about AMC, I’ve not discussed AMC,”"”

    I am glad that you do not dispute my point about the AMC. The AMC was known to be a radical organization, and its founder, leader and funder Abdurahman Alamoudi was known to be a radical promoter of violence prior to the time that we know for certain that Faisal Gill worked for the AMC, which is 2001.

    “”"I have no interest in an argument over AMC.”"”

    That you are not interested in discussing the AMC does not make the AMC go away.

    Gill worked as the chief lobbyist for the AMC when its radicalism was known and the violent rhetoric of its founder was known. It was common knowledge that Alamoudi was still there when Gill was there. Gill describes Alamoudi as being on the AMC board, which would have been impossible if Gill only worked for the AMC in 2001 for a few months.

    “”"My argument has been that there is no evidence that anything Gill did as a consultant did ANYTHING to aid terrorists,”"”

    Your argument is wrong. It was the job of the AMCs chief lobbyist to improve AMCs access to Congress and the White House, and in fact Gill describes his own job as including those duties. The mere act of providing the terrorist Alamoudi’s AMC with improved access to the White House aided terrorists.

    Alamoudi in a quote I provided earlier in this thread said that the AMC opposed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and that it was the AMC that went to the White House and expressed support for Hamas.

    The AMC aided terrorists, namely, the suicide-bombing group Hamas. It is difficult to argue otherwise. Gill as the AMCs chief lobbyist, if he was doing his job, aided the AMC.

    “”"that Gill had no way of knowing that people who were invited into the White House and were friends with congressmen were in fact aiding terrorists,”"”

    This is false. You should read federal agent Brent Gentrup’s 2003 affidavit asking for continued detention of the arrested Alamoudi, who later was sentenced to 23 years. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.findlaw.com%2Fhdocs%2Fdocs%2Fterrorism%2Fusalamoudi93003cmp.pdf&ei=UY86Rr_bJY_WgwTNvLWaAw&usg=AFrqEzeRSGsQEl0Fm4KiZjhz6c0CQVyefg&sig2=v7pnf9XZu_Y2mKJ5POVxOA

    “”"35. I have reviewed the transcript of a video tape of Alamoudi speaking at an rally in
    Lafayette Park, Washington, D.C., on October 28, 2000. In this rally, Alamoudi the audience as
    follows:
    ‘I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas.
    Anybody support this Hamas here? Anybody’s [sic] is a supporter of Hamas
    here? Anybody’s [sic] is a supporter of Hamas here? Hear that Bill Clinton, we
    are all supporters of Hamas! Allah akbar [God is greater]. I wish to add here I am
    also a supporter of Hezbollah! Anybody supports Hezbollah here? Anybody
    supports Hezbollah here? . . . I want to send a message. . . My brothers, this is
    the message that we have to carry to everybody. It’s an occupation, and Hamas is
    fighting to end an occupation. It’s a legal fight. Allah akbar! Allah akbar!’”"”

    October 2000 was either during or just prior to the time when Gill worked as the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council. Gill describes Alamoudi as an AMC board member (in fact Alamoudi was much more than a mere board member.) The videotape that agent Gentrup describes was on national television. Hillary Clinton and George Bush both returned their Alamoudi donations because of it.

    How can Gill, the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council, claim that he was unaware of Alamoudi’s propensity for violent rhetoric?

    “”"connections which came to light after his assignment to them ended.”"”

    That is completely false, as I show above. We know from press reports in which Gill was quoted that Gill worked for the AMC as recently as the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. That is a year after Alamoudi’s radicalism made the national news.

    “”"We know his work was minor on their behalf, not in your mind but in actual work”"”

    His title was not minor. He was Director, Government Relations for the AMC. That means that he was the AMCs chief lobbyist.

    “”"— as can be seen by the small amounts of money involved.”"”

    We know that Gill received at least $10,000 from the American Muslim Council and another $10,000 from the Grover Norquist founded/Abdurahman Alamoudi funded Islamic Institute. That is $20,000 that we know about, because Gill provided those figures as the amount he received from October 2000 to October 2001.

    Gill has never furnished a complete accounting of all that he received from Alamoudi-funded/Norquist-backed organizations. But we know it was at least $20,000. That may not be much to you, but I have to work full-time for months to make that amount.

    “”"You don’t get a lot for a few thousand bucks.”"”

    Charles, it is clear that you are ashamed of certain aspects of Faisal Gill’s history and seek to downplay them. It wasn’t a few thousand, it was $20,000 that we know of. We don’t know the full amount because Gill, YOUR CANDIDATE refuses to tell the public when he first started working for the AMC, when he last stopped, and how much total he was paid.

    “”"He’s answered your allegations about his knowledge or involvement with the groups,”"”

    My allegation is that Gill knew that the AMC was a radical organization founded and led by Abdurahman Alamoudi, he knew that Alamoudi remained in a leadership role while Gill was there, he knew of Alamoudi’s support for terrorism abroad if not in the US, and GILL KEPT WORKING THERE!

    Gill has not responded to or even acknowledged that allegation, which I have made consistently and which others also make. Gill refuses to answer it because he cannot. Tell me what his answer is.

    “”"and you didn’t like his answer so you are saying he’s lying about it.”"”

    Gill’s claim that he worked for the AMC for a few months in 2001 and that Abdurahman Alamoudi was on the AMC board while he was there is inconsistent with the facts and thus impossible. We know from contemporaneous press interviews with Gill that he was at the AMC in September 2001. Alamoudi was last on the AMC board in 2000, a period of at least 9 months prior to Gill leaving the AMC and probably longer. I am still attempting to ascertain when Alamoudi nominally pretended to leave the AMC and left its board.

    “”He can’t answer that, a man can only tell the truth, he can’t make people believe it.”"

    But Gill’s claim that he worked for the AMC for a few months in 2001 and that Alamoudi was on the AMC board while Gill was there is not the truth. In fact, it is impossible. That which is impossible is not the truth.

    “”"Faisal has an impressive resume.”"”

    When it suits you you claim that titles don’t matter and that even though Faisal Gill was the Director, Government Relations for the American Muslim Council in fact he did very little for the group. Then when it suits you you argue that we should hire Gill because you claim he has impressive titles on his resume. Both claims cannot be true. If titles indicate achievement then Gill achieved much on behalf of the AMC as its Director, Government Relations.

    “”"He was a successful consultant — so they claim he supported terrorists.”"”

    Who is “they”? “They” do all kinds of things, but Faisal Gill was chief lobbyist for a terrorist’s organization, and now five years later you want to send him to Richmond.

    The problem is not an amorphous “they,” it is a specific person, Faisal Gill who engaged in specific wrongful acts, including storming out of a White House meeting because convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian’s son was denied admission.

    How do you justify that? How do you justify storming out of a meeting because agents asked the son of a now-convicted terrorist to leave, something that they had every right to do?

    And what kind of a Republican storms out of a Bush White House meeting anyway?

  47. Anonymous said on 3 May 2007 at 11:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    And what kind of a Republican storms out of a Bush White House meeting anyway?

    Not a very cooperative Republican storms out of the White House. Not a team player. Not a politically astute player.

  48. Jonathan Mark said on 4 May 2007 at 7:06 am:
    Flag comment

    What does the PWCRC think of Faisal Gill’s 2001 public assertion that “the White House will engage only if it is allowed to dictate the terms…exclusion, discrimination or exploitation by special interest groups.”????

    Hmmmm…..WHICH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS could Faisal Gill have been talking about? I wonder. Maybe Charles and James Young could enlighten us on this subject.

    Here is a 6/29/01 article from IslamOnline which describes Gill’s walkout. http://www.islamonline.net/english/news/2001-06/29/article2.shtml .

    “”"WASHINGTON, June 28 (IslamOnline) - The American Muslim Council (AMC) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) released press statements Thursday stating that Muslims representing leading national American Muslim organizations walked out of a White House briefing after members of the secret service escorted a delegation member out of the meeting and asked him to leave the premises.

    White House security escorted Abdullah Al-Arian, 20, a Muslim student activist from Duke University who works in the office of Congressman David Bonior (D-MI), and son of Sami Al-Arian, who spearheads the legislative challenge to the use of secret evidence and leads the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), out of a meeting organized by MPAC.

    Rev. Mark Scott replaced Dilulio, and as he was addressing the group, White House Security approached Abdullah Al-Arian asking him to exit the premises of the White House due to his father’s political activities.

    The meeting was setup exclusively between leaders of Muslim organizations and John Dilulio, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, to discuss the President George W. Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative and its implications for the Muslim community.

    MPAC and the Faith-based Office organized the meeting to deepen a dialogue between the Office and the American Muslim community.

    Al-Arian obtained security clearance prior to the start of the event.

    An angry Dilulio called Abdullah Al-Arian’s exclusion “guilt by association”.

    Among those who walked out were Mahdi Bray, organizer of the meeting and President of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations, Nedzib Sacirbey and Faisal Gill from the American Muslim Council, and Salam Al-Marayati and Hassan Ibrahim, from MPAC.

    They issued a joint statement following the incident: “This incident is the latest in an unfortunate pattern of exclusion by the Bush administration.

    “This sends a message to American Muslims that the White House will engage only if it is allowed to dictate the terms and decide who is allowed at the table. American Muslim organizations reject the notion that community members must pass a litmus test.

    “A meaningful dialogue must be based on equity, accessibility and fairness and not exclusion, discrimination or exploitation by special interest groups.”

    MPAC Political Advisor Mahdi Bray said, “The Bush administration needs to issue an apology to the American Muslim community for this affront.”"”

    Note that since this article Sami Al-Arian has been convicted of providing services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and is currently in federal prison.

  49. Jonathan Mark said on 4 May 2007 at 7:21 am:
    Flag comment

    I buried the lead in the above posting. The strangest statement from Gill, who now claims to be a conservative but was the chief lobbyist for the Democrat-led American Muslim Council, was “”This incident is the latest in an unfortunate pattern of exclusion by the Bush administration.”

    Obviously, Faisal Gill has learned to parrot whatever it is that those around him want to hear. When he is working for Dems he says “This incident is the latest in an unfortunate pattern of exclusion by the Bush administration.”

    What makes me laugh is that Charles says I should simply ask Gill what his positions are. Of course now Gill will say what he thinks Republicans want to hear. But that is not how Gill spoke in 2001, when he was the chief lobbyist for the Democratic and terrorist-led American Muslim Council.

    “This incident is the latest in an unfortunate pattern of exclusion by the Bush administration.”–Faisal Gill, 2001. How do the Gill endorsers explain that?

  50. Anonymous said on 4 May 2007 at 10:25 am:
    Flag comment

    Is Faisal Gill a shiite or a Sunni? That could determine what some of his positions really are. One group is more liberal than the other.

  51. charles said on 5 May 2007 at 4:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    The quote wasn’t from Gill, it was a joint release from the two organizations.

    You are getting harder to follow. You now argue that Almoudi wasn’t IN the AMC when Gill was there? But you argue that he was tied to Almoudi because of the AMC? Make up your mind.

    Gill’s statements are clear. You say he’s lying, but he has answered your allegations, including those you claim he didn’t answer above.

    ===========================
    Q: What was your relationship with Abdurahman Alamoudi? Did you have any knowledge towards the relationship Mr. Alamoudi had with Sami al-Arian?

    A: I did not have one. He was on the board on American Muslim Council when I was working for them. I met him four to five times. Most of the times I met him at conferences. He was not involved in the day to day running of the orgainzation

    Sami al-Arian, I know only from community news and events. Don’t have a relationship with him.

    Q: In a Salon.com article, Mark Jacoby indicates that you had a conflict of interest in DHS by having “access top secret information on the vulnerability of America’s seaports, aviation facilities and nuclear power plants to terrorist attacks, and you “failed to list on security clearance documents his [Gill] work in 2001 for the American Muslim Council.” Was this an oversight, how do you explain leaving that off?

    A: It was not an oversight. I never was employed by American Muslim Council. Therefore I was not suppose to list them. I listed the consulting company that placed me at AMC. I was a contractor at AMC. When I was filling out the forms, I asked the people what I should write. They told me only to list employers, those who issued me a W-2. Had I listed AMC, I would have been in violation. That would be like a Booz Allen contractor who works at DHS listing DHS as his employer. I also did not write Jay Katzen, who also paid me during the same time.

    What is interesting and was never reported was that at the same time I was completing my ethics forms in which I not only disclosed that I worked for AMC, I also listed how much they paid me. Both documents were used during my security clearance process. If I was trying to hide why would I list it on my ethics forms?

    Q: What was the nature of your work at the American Muslim Council, and be as specific as possible?

    A: I was the spokesman and I also assisted them in reaching out to Congress. I attended meeting with AMC and congressmen. During the few months I was there I also was involved in inviting government officials to a AMC conference.

    Q: Were you aware in ANY WAY of Alamoudi’s actions? And despite him being voted out of AMC, did you know that he still controlled it through friendly board members, and if so, why did you continue working there?

    A: No. I was never that close to the inner workings of AMC. While I was working for AMC, I was also working for Jay Katzen and was also working running a VA delegate campaign. I was not there that often. I would set up meeting, prepare briefings and attend the meetings. All that was not done at the direction of Alamoudi.

    ===========================

    So, contrary to your claims, he answers the charges. He did not know Alamoudi controlled AMC, AMC was not KNOWN as a terror organization (THEY WERE BEING INVITED TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!). AMC wanted access, they hired a company, the company assigned Gill, and Gill provided services as per the contract between AMC and his company.

    I’m sorry to hear that you have to work months to make $20,000. Obviously you are not a successful lawyer, as I am not either. But in the consulting world, $10,000 doesn’t buy you very much “consulting”.

    I’ll take your word for now that the amount from the AMC was $10,000, which is “a few thousand dollars”, but nice try dragging in money paid for his representation of a separate group to try to up the value.

    Your knowledge of my personal feelings is both inaccurate and baseless, but also meaningless to this discussion.

    My point stands. You charged that I was defending AMC. I never defended AMC, and that was what I said. You can try to make that into some other proclamation, but that was the extent of it. You falsely accused me, I called you on it, and you didn’t have the decency to apologize, but instead just launched into another diatribe.

  52. Jonathan Mark said on 5 May 2007 at 11:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"The quote wasn’t from Gill, it was a joint release from the two organizations.”"”

    The statement is from Gill himself, along with others. Gill affixed his name to it. The 6/29/01 IslamOnline article states ‘Among those who walked out were Mahdi Bray, organizer of the meeting and President of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations, Nedzib Sacirbey and Faisal Gill from the American Muslim Council, and Salam Al-Marayati and Hassan Ibrahim, from MPAC. They issued a joint statement following the incident: “This incident is the latest in an unfortunate pattern of exclusion by the Bush administration.”‘

    “THEY (emphasis added) issued a joint statement.” THEY are the people who walked out, and the IslamOnline article states that Gill was one of those people who walked out. What part of that do you not understand?

    “You now argue that Almoudi wasn’t IN the AMC when Gill was there?”

    No, I argue that Alamoudi on paper left the AMC board in 2000. If Alamoudi was on the AMC board when Gill was there, and Gill says that Alamoudi was, then that means that Gill was at the AMC in 2000 as well as most of 2001. That means that Gill’s claim that Gill himself was only at the AMC for “a few months” is a lie.

    “”"He did not know Alamoudi controlled AMC,”"”

    Gill merely states “He [Alamoudi] was not involved in the day to day running of the organization.” Gill does not dispute that Alamoudi was involved in running the organization. Nor does Gill deny being aware that Alamoudi was involved in running the organization. In fact, Gill’s admission that Alamoudi was on the board and that he met Alamoudi four or five times indicates an awareness that Alamoudi WAS involved in running the organization.

    “”"AMC was not KNOWN as a terror organization (THEY WERE BEING INVITED TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!).”"”

    AMC was an organization which supported foreign terror. Here is AMC founder and, according to Gill’s own admission, AMC board member Abdurahman Alamoudi speaking in front of the White House on 10/28/00 in nationally televised statements of which Gill was aware: “‘I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas.
    Anybody support this Hamas here? Anybody’s [sic] is a supporter of Hamas
    here? Anybody’s [sic] is a supporter of Hamas here? Hear that Bill Clinton, we
    are all supporters of Hamas! Allah akbar [God is greater]. I wish to add here I am
    also a supporter of Hezbollah! Anybody supports Hezbollah here? Anybody
    supports Hezbollah here? . . . I want to send a message. . . My brothers, this is
    the message that we have to carry to everybody. It’s an occupation, and Hamas is
    fighting to end an occupation. It’s a legal fight. Allah akbar! Allah akbar!’”

    “”"AMC wanted access, they hired a company, the company assigned Gill, and Gill provided services as per the contract between AMC and his company.”"”

    Agreed. Gill’s job was to provide access to the White House for the terror-supporting AMC. Here is what Alamoudi himself said about the AMCs access to the White House, as quoted in the 3/1/2004 edition of Insight On The News: ‘On June 2, 2000, the U.S.-based al-Zaitounah newspaper interviewed Alamoudi in English on his pro-Hamas activities at the AMC. “Our position with regard to the peace process is well-known,” he said. “We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.”‘

    That is what is so offensive about Gill’s working to grant access to the AMC, his employer, as Director, Governmental Affairs of the AMC. AMC used that access that Gill got them and “went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.”

    Charles, the argument that Gill was merely providing the AMC with access to the White House demolishes your argument about the innocent nature of Gill’s activities, given Alamoudi’s own statements about what the AMC used that access for.

  53. novamiddleman said on 8 May 2007 at 7:12 am:
    Flag comment

    I cant wait for this primary to be over

    Can we start supporting republicans at some point please

    and attacking democrats is not out of the question :-p

Comments are closed.


Views: 3258