Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Faisal Gill Out-Files Julie Lucas

By Greg L | 22 May 2007 | 51st HOD District | 86 Comments

Republican campaigns in the 51st turned in their delegate forms this evening, and the counts are:

Faisal Gill: 745 delegate forms
Julie Lucas: 511 delegate forms
Mail/Other: 32 delegate forms

Depending on the distribution of the forms within the district, there’s a possibility, although not a great one, that some precincts may require mass meetings. Now the credentials committee will process these forms to determine which delegates will be certified, and if any mass meetings are required. From there, it depends on who actually attends the June 2nd convention, and a fight among the convention attendees to determine who the nominee will be.

It’s too early to determine whether there’s a real advantage here for Faisal Gill in these numbers, but there is not any basis to conclude that Julie Lucas has the upper hand here. There’s more to a convention than just signing up delegates. But by the objective criteria available, as it stands right now, Faisal seems to have an advantage if the quality, in terms of how likely the delegates are to attend and vote as they were instructed when they signed up, of his delegates is equivalent to the quality of Julie’s. On June 2nd we’ll know if that’s the case.

In the meantime, I hope delegates will use this interlude to find out more about the candidates. I recommend they make use of google.



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.

86 Comments

  1. charles said on 22 May 2007 at 12:13 am:
    Flag comment

    The real question is how the delegates for each are distributed across the district, since there is proportional weighting for the convention.

    It is possible to have more delegates, but get less votes. Or to have more delegates, and yet get a lot more votes.

    The weighting is a good thing because it means you can’t focus on a single area, but rather need to get delegates from every precinct. On the other hand, it makes it harder to make simple comparisons.

    Meanwhile, no matter who you are supporting (I’m still officially neutral), 1288 delegates for a district convention is a good number of delegates. Both candidates should be proud of getting so many people to at least say they’d show up on a Saturday to support them.

  2. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 12:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Gill has quite a bit money and he has taken advantage of that situation. Further, most voters and convention delegates probably do not know about Gills problems until the Lucas mailing.

    Many people are probably confused by the charges and probably think it is hype. Unless the delegates take time to think through the ramifications of the charges, they will vote for Gill.

    Many Americans hate to think badly of another person and tend to discount the worst motives in people. Look at all the educated endorsements from high ranking government officials and groups.

  3. James Young said on 22 May 2007 at 12:46 am:
    Flag comment

    “Unless the delegates take time to think through the ramifications of the charges, they will vote for Gill.”

    Actually, the people who know Gill would say that if the delegates take time to think through the ramifications of the charges, and the motives of those making them, they will vote for Gill.

    One way or the other (it all depends upon turnout), it looks like an impending good day for Faisal.

  4. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 12:57 am:
    Flag comment

    That’s almost a 3 to 2 ratio. Has anyone ever overcome such odds?

  5. Greg L said on 22 May 2007 at 1:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes, it’s happened before, but it’s not terribly common. If someone files a lot of “garbage” delegate forms in order to try to scare their opponent, the delegate form numbers don’t mean a lot. We’ll just have to see how solid the delegates actually are for these two candidates. It’s too early to tell at this point, but if they’re of equal quality, Julie has an uphill fight here.

  6. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 1:18 am:
    Flag comment

    I am a delegate for Gill and I am just finding out about the charges. I could overlook one or two problems from several years ago, but the most recent disclosures in the last week was the last straw for me.

  7. oldie said on 22 May 2007 at 1:22 am:
    Flag comment

    anonymous said “Gill has quite a bit money and he has taken advantage of that situation.” This is a ridiculous statement. Are you trying to say that he paid people to be his delegates? why don’t you admit that he worked very hard going door to door? Faisal has shown class by avoiding smear campaign. On the other had Julie………… it’s not even worth mentioning.

    we, the supporters of Faisal, will make sure he wins on June 2nd. The only reason he is being attacked on, is because he is muslim, this is so un-american.

    Please don’t response by bringing alamoudi charges because you guys sound like a broken record. We all know Faisal was cleared by homeland security department and that’s why he is being supported by”educated and high ranking officials”.

  8. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 1:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Good thing you can still go to the convention and vote for Julie! I suppose that’s one thing that really hasn’t been brought up… at this point, both campaigns have essentially gotten fragile commitments from well over 1,000 people, if they turn up, and who they vote for are very much up in the air. Making a prediction based on tonight’s numbers is not the most politically savvy thing to do.

  9. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 1:31 am:
    Flag comment

    Ummmm “oldie,” were you just really drunk when you posted that, or are you so woefully uneducated that you can’t string one sentence together without making some pretty severe grammatical errors? Sorry to make this personal, but for the love of God, don’t make a post advocating like that and sound like a 4th grader! I think you just lost Faisal 50 votes right there!

  10. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 1:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Sure Faisal may have worked very hard going door to door. But that is not the issue. I am not attacking him because he is a muslim. Alamoudi is a very old issue, one that concerns me, but it is the more recent issues that really really concern me.

    Faisal has demonstrated that being with terrorists financiers was not a simple mistake, but a continual behavior for over six or seven years.

  11. Greg L said on 22 May 2007 at 1:44 am:
    Flag comment

    oldie, if you think this is about Faisal’s religion, you’re wearing blinders here. Just point to anyone saying that we shouldn’t elect Faisal Gill because he’s a muslim. I don’t even think that commenters on these threads have said anything of the sort, and I am certain I have not.

  12. oldie said on 22 May 2007 at 2:10 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t think Faisal was personally involved with any terrorists financiers. These are just baseless allegations against him. If faisal had any ties with terrorist financiers he would be behind bars.

  13. oldie said on 22 May 2007 at 2:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I hope you are right because muslim population is rapidly growing in Washington metro area. We will see more and more muslims americans running for office. Saqib Ali(democratic muslim)has won as a state delegate in Maryland assembly. I personally feel that Faisal is being butchered in your blogs because he is muslim. I also feel that Faisal is determined enough to win this race gracefully against all odds.

  14. AWCheney said on 22 May 2007 at 3:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Oldie, you’re playing the bigot card which is generally considered an act of desperation. Are you (and Faisal’s people) so insecure in your filings that you insist upon pulling that one out…again? When all this started I wasn’t even absolutely sure that Gill WAS Muslim, given that his children are in Catholic school. There are SO many rational, legitimate reasons not to vote for him (which have been noted right here on this blog on a variety of threads) that his religion has become hardly relevant, and the suggestion that someone who doesn’t support him is bigoted is quite ridiculous.

  15. AWCheney said on 22 May 2007 at 3:32 am:
    Flag comment

    I just saw another VERY GOOD reason for delegates to select Julie Lucas over Faisal Gill at the convention…Ben Tribbett over at Not Larry Sebato has the scoop on another Democratic candidate who has now filed for the nomination in the 51st, Paul Nichols (http://www.nbzs.com/nichols.html). If Gill is the candidate he, and the Republicans, are toast.

  16. Anon.. said on 22 May 2007 at 6:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Don’t let the numbers throw you. Charles is right. It matters more where the delegates are from, and how many actually show up. Just because a campaign signs up a delegate, it doesn’t mean that the delegate will vote for that camp’s candidate. Each will have their core, and there will be a lot of uncommitteds, who won’t make their decision until they hear the candidates speak.

  17. Watching said on 22 May 2007 at 6:22 am:
    Flag comment

    Filings are one thing. Credentialed delegates are another. I’d watch Kopko closely on this one, to make sure that unqualified delegates aren’t credentialed and allowed to vote. I believe that during the Chairman of the BCOS convention, 100 dlegates forms for Stuart just “showed up” at the 11th hour. Some were not signed or dated, and should have been tossed. Instead, these delegates were allowed to sign their forms, after the deadline.

    I’d be looking for these sorts of things at this convention.

  18. joe said on 22 May 2007 at 6:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Watching-

    Kopko has nothing to do with credentialing delegates, that would be the credentials committee.

    That being said, this is far from over. You have to realize that a lot of the delegates are very “soft,” only knowing that there is a convention June 2nd. I’m sure there is some preference given to the candidate who signed them up, but I’m not sure it’s much.

  19. Bryanna said on 22 May 2007 at 6:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Watching,
    Very interesting comment.

    Similiar accounts have been sighted at the occoquan convention btw Faisal was the convention chair. At a recent election for vice chair for PWCRC under Kopko’s direct supervision, a blind eye was cast allowing non-members the ability to vote. Rules were ignored for example an attendee voted by proxy who wasn’t a member themselves. Common thread here, the names of Kopko and Gill are brought to the forefront once again. The numbers weren’t significant enough to change the results so it was dropped.

  20. Bryanna said on 22 May 2007 at 7:16 am:
    Flag comment

    James Young…remember the time when Gill was responsible for bringing the food for the GOP Labor Day picnic and never showed?

    At a convention he announced a speaker but hadn’t confirmed with the speaker, even worse hadn’t notified this person until 8:00 p.m. by way of a cell phone message left the night before.

    What about the Tax Payers Alliance that Gill chairs, how many meetings have been held, three in 3 years?

    What about his multiple reckless driving tickets, which may result in suspension of his drivers license.

    Gill is known to be lazy and unreliable…is that who Republicans want in Richmond? I think I’d rather have a classy RINO.

  21. Bryanna said on 22 May 2007 at 7:35 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.pwcgov.org/documents/bocs/agendas/2007/20070515.pdf

    Gill’s entire resume can viewed at the link above

    Maybe we should be asking politicians for their resume more often?

  22. James Young said on 22 May 2007 at 8:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Oldie, I don’t believe that Greg is against Faisal because he is Muslim. Greg is against Faisal because it is quite possible that Faisal’s law firm — who represents someone suing Greg for defamation/libel/slander — will be the instrument of Greg’s impoverishment (well, after Greg’s mouth/keyboard, that is).

    As for the others, note that they are, mainly, either Democrats, anonymous/pseudonymous (like you), or AWCheney. I was particularly impressed by the “Anonymous” who claims to have been a supporter, but is “just finding out” about these allegations. Suuuuure. Put a name on it, and have been demonstrably a supporter, and then, I might buy it.

    With all that having been said, while you can’t stick a fork in Julie, she’s nearly done. I hope it’s not too late for her to run for School Board again.

  23. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 9:21 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Maybe we should be asking politicians for their resume more often?”"”

    http://www.pwcgov.org/documents/bocs/agendas/2007/0515/11-C.pdf

    What is strange and inconsistent about Gill’s resume is that it contains no mention of Gill and Gallinger, even though Gill normally claims that Gill and Gallinger is his employer.

    Sapentia LLC, which Gill claims is his employer has a different address from Gll and Gallinger. Sapentia in turn on its website claims to be “a division of the Luxor Group of companies. A web search for an american entity called the Luxor group of companies turned up nothing.

    Is it two much for the County Board of Supervisors to review this resume for inconsistencies and omissions? Why does the BOS ask for a resume if it doesn’t review it?

  24. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 9:28 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"was particularly impressed by the “Anonymous” who claims to have been a supporter, but is “just finding out” about these allegations. Suuuuure. “”"”

    Maybe the “Google Faisal Gill” campaign is having an effect.

    By the way, James, have you ever bothered to “Google Faisal Gill”? You might learn a thing or two about the American Muslim Council, Asim Ghafoor. Al-Haramain…

  25. John Light said on 22 May 2007 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles - you being “neutral” is like saying that Israel is a “disinterested observer” in Middle Eastern Politics and Jim, well, EVERYONE knows that the ONLY reason you support Faisal is because you are jealous that Julie has done what you failed to do.

    Since you, Jim, wrote, “As for the others, note that they are, mainly, either Democrats, anonymous/pseudonymous (like you), or AWCheney”…since I am neither a Democrat (I have an Eisenhower Commission on my wall in my townhouse along with a life membership card to the Republican Party), anonymous/pseudonymous (John Light IS my real name) or AWCheney, then I will say that if you follow the supporters of Faisal on here they are either people who live in their parents basement playing with trains or washed up, has been, many times rejected candidates who could not win a local election, or terrorist supporters.

    Oh, by the way, Jackson Miller was outfiled 2/1 by his opponent. Jim, could you please remind me who won THAT election??? Oh yeah, I forgot, you have a problem with WINNERS.

  26. John Light said on 22 May 2007 at 9:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon: You give VERY compelling arguments but unfortunately, with your final sentence, you fall into the Faisal trap of alleging Ms. Lucas to be a RINO when you say “I think I’d rather have a classy RINO.”

    The facts of Ms. Lucas are that she is: Pro-Life, Pro 2nd Amendment, the ONLY Republican who voted against the Admin. Building, she supports home school and private school students to attend up to 2 credit bearing courses a semester, supported increasing parental involvement in choosing student textbooks - and this is just to name a few.

    Except for the 2nd Amendment and possibly the pro-life stance, all these are on record from her time on the School Board.

    So PLEASE explain what is RINO about this??

    The Faisal Campaign is desparate so they are pulling out the race card. Could not the same be said about them??? Let’s just turn it around and say that if you support Faisal, you are against women. But you know what? Ms. Lucas and her campaign do not have to do that because she has run a professional, above-board campaign, whereas her opponent, Faisal Gill, has shown over and over that the laws of this country and military regulations do not apply to him (Hatch Act, UCMJ violation, Navy Height/Weight Standards, numerous traffic tickets).

  27. Manassas insider said on 22 May 2007 at 9:57 am:
    Flag comment

    John Light, you have reminded me and you are absolutely right. I believe that Jackson Miller was outfiled by about 800 to 400.

    Plus several years earlier in the senate republican convention Dave Mabie outfiled Bob by just as big a difference. Yes Bob lost that day, but only by a handfull of votes.

    The Lucas numbers are better that both Jackson’s and Bob’s. I do think Julie has a decent chance at winning this one.

  28. James Young said on 22 May 2007 at 10:04 am:
    Flag comment

    John, I had you in mind when I qualified my remarks with “mainly.” You are one of the few exceptions who is actually quantifiable… and, like me, you can’t vote in this race.

    On the other hand, I suppose that I could discuss in detail what may be some of the reasons why you are supporting Julie. Shall we go there?

    I fail to understand these repeated personal attacks on me, John. I’ve explained elsewhere why I support Faisal over Julie here — her past association with a tax-increasing candidate; her vicious attacks on me when I dared to support another candidate in that race (BTW, the one who won the seat) — and even conceded that I erred when I supported her opponent over her when she ran for the School Board, yet you persist in attributing base personal jealousies.

    But I suppose that your attacks on me do make the point that my remarks about Faisal are certainly suspect. After all, your comments very handily demonstrate that my judgment about those that I categorize — or more accurately, have categorized — as “friends” is sometimes suspect.

  29. Loudoun Insider said on 22 May 2007 at 10:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Keep a close eye on the internal workings of this convention. The credentials committee will be key - I assume it was appointed by Kopko, paid consultant to the Gill campaign.

  30. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 11:06 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"why I support Faisal over Julie here — her past association with a tax-increasing candidate;”"”

    Hmmm. James says that he won’t vote for Julie because of an “association.” Yet he inconsistently accuses us of “guilt by association” because we refer to Faisal Gill’s employment by or on behalf of the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi or Asim Ghafoor.

    Go figure.

    By the way, Ken Cuccinelli voted for the creation of a new regional transportation tax authority in Northern Virginia. Ken Cuccinelli is thus certainly a “tax-increasing candidate.” And Cuccinelli endorsed Faisal, which is certainly an “assocation.”

    So if the standard is that James Young won’t support those who associate with tax increasers then James Young ought not to support Faisal.

  31. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 11:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Some of us Gill delegates signed up having just met the candidate and reading some literature. Never before have I had to google candidates names to find out more. That was a first. Even in 2004 and 2005 I was not doing google research on candidates.

    I was looking at very boring local candidate websites in 2005. It usually not the way I want to spend my free time. Many of the local candidate websites will put you to sleep.

    With many campaigns you are lucky to find the candidate’s website.
    At the local level most candidates don’t have this much information written about them and have not received national press regarding investigations and commentary by Frank Gaffney and Michelle Malkin.

    I have been around the internet for many years. I am sure many of the delegates have not googled the candidates. Why should they, most voters are not bloggers.

    In Prince William, a county with one of the longest commutes in the country, most voters don’t have the time to do in depth research on candidates.

    I think in the future more and more voters will google the candidates.
    These local blogs were gain more and more credibility concerning the local news. But you guys are on cutting edge for politics and blogging.

    Unfortunately, that works in Faisal Gill’s favor because many of the older delegates are not as computer/internet smart as the younger crowd of say 45 and younger. Many of the older delegates may only find out about the Faisal Gill controversy on convention day.

  32. James Young said on 22 May 2007 at 11:22 am:
    Flag comment

    That’s it, JM! I’m persuaded! Obviously, I was mistaken about Julie and unfair, because there was no way that she could know about Buck Waters’ enthusiasm for higher taxes.

    Or wait. Is it that I’m mistaken about Faisal, because there was no way that he could know about whoever’s terrorist agenda.

    Obviously, there’s no difference between someone who favors higher taxes and one who supports terrorism.

    Or maybe there is.

    Keep spinning your tales!

  33. 51st District Good Guy said on 22 May 2007 at 11:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Let me make this clear to everyone… The Faisal Gill campaign, is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, pulling the race card… There are supporters of Faisal Gill out there who have been following these blogs and sense a certain anti-Muslim rhetoric through the words of Greg L., Jonathan Mark, and others… That’s why they choose to say what they say… Just as we don’t control what Greg L. or Jonathan Mark say about Faisal, we don’t control what our supporters say or how they feel… Just wanted to make that clear to everyone…

  34. charles said on 22 May 2007 at 12:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    To the several posters who mention Gills “resume”. That resume is from 2005, when he was put on the Housing Board. They just re-used the same resume because the re-appointment was perfunctory.

  35. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 12:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Gill campaign has pulled the muslim card. Gill has said that people are against him because of his muslim background. What Gill doesn’t say is that people are against him because of his background with terrorists and their supporters.

    Gill tries to discredit those who are attacking him on his associations and work history by claiming the critics don’t like muslims.

  36. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 12:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"That’s it, JM! I’m persuaded!”"”

    Good.

    “”"Obviously, I was mistaken about Julie and unfair,”"”

    Good.

    “”"because there was no way that she could know about Buck Waters’ enthusiasm for higher taxes.”"”

    On the other hand, there was every way that Faisal could know about his endorser Ken Cuccinelli’s enthusiasm for a new Northern Virginia regional transportation taxing authority.

    In fact, Gill had to know about his endorser Cuccinelli’s support for the new taxing authority. Transportation is a major campaign issue around here.

    “”"Or wait. Is it that I’m mistaken about Faisal,”"”

    Yes, you have been mistaken about Faisal.

    “”"because there was no way that he could know about whoever’s”"”

    Abdurahman Alamoudi’s and Asim Ghafoor’s

    “”"terrorist agenda.”"”

    Given that Alamoudi stood in front of the White House on national television and proclaimed his membership in Hamas and Hezbollah, interspersed with cries of “Allah Akbar” I think that Faisal Gill knew. He didn’t care.

    Alamoudi is the man whose organization Faisal Gill chose to go work for as its chief lobbyist six months later.

    “”"Obviously, there’s no difference between someone who favors higher taxes and one who supports terrorism.”"”

    Well, I think I could convince you that supporting terrorism is worse.

    “”"Or maybe there is.”"”

    You are intermittently seeing the light. instead of a stream of dhimmi claptrap you now have moments of lucidity.

    James, I hope that you will continue to wean yourself from allegiance to terrorists’ lobbyists such as Faisal Gill and his Sapentia LLC/AG Consulting/Gill and Ghafoor lobbying partner Asim Ghafoor.

    Many people change their views over time when confronted with hard facts, and I hope that you can be one of them.

  37. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 12:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"”The Faisal Gill campaign, is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, pulling the race card…”"

    The Faisal Gill campaign is absolutely, in every way, shape and form, pulling the race card.

    From day one, Faisal has been claiming that some people oppose him because he is a Moslem.

    For instance, just recently Faisal Gill told the 5/19/07 edition of the Saturday Post:

    “”"This does mean that some people will probably attack you for being Muslim or Pakistani, but at this stage that is what we must endure. My goal is to make it so that when my son runs, he does not have to worry about his Pakistani heritage. The only way to accomplish that is not hide where you are from.”"”"

    http://www.thesaturdaypost.com/rendezvous_89_faisal_gill.html

    Please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that Faisal’s campaign does not play the race card. We have here one of many examples of it, from Faisal himself.

  38. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 12:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t care about his Pakistani heritage. If you are a good Paki who is anti terrorism, then I will support you. If you are a waki Paki, who is pro terrorism then I will be against you.

    It is the terrorism stupid.

    Many in the US support pro american muslims around the world. Many muslims who have come to the USA support democracy.

    But many muslims come to the US with a chip on their shoulder and try to fight many of the US policies or are here to disrupt anti terror operations.

    They don’t cooperate with authorities and they sue the federal government when the Homeland Security and other agencies try to root out terrorists right here in our back yard.

  39. 51st District Good Guy said on 22 May 2007 at 1:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    What Faisal said is absolutely right… Some people may vote against him simply because he is Muslim or he is of Pakistan heritage… A better explanation of what I meant is the Faisal Gill campaign is NOT out there saying that if you vote against Faisal, it’s because you’re anti-Muslim… No, that’s not what they’re saying at all… That’s what some of you are making it seem like… Faisal has stated though, and it makes perfect sense, that there are people out there that will definitely oppose him just because he is Muslim… People take “pulling the race card” in different contexts… This is simply all I meant by the campaign NOT pulling the race card… He’s not out there stating that all of Julie Lucas’ supporters are anti-Muslim… I hope that makes some sense… Sorry for the mix-up…

  40. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 1:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Julie Lucas has a weak campaign

  41. John Light said on 22 May 2007 at 1:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    51st: Actually, Mike Wooten, working directly for the Faisal campaign, asked a potential delegate when he was doorknocking, “Do you not support Faisal because he is Muslim?”

    I am sorry, but to me, THAT sounds like the race card to me.

  42. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"What Faisal said is absolutely right… Some people may vote against him simply because he is Muslim or he is of Pakistan heritage… “”"

    Some people may vote against Julie because she is a woman. Some people may vote against both of them because they are overweight.

    However, Faisal makes his claim that he faces prejudice for being a Moslem a feature of his campaign.

    Julie does not make claims that she faces prejudice for being a woman a feature of her campaign. That is the difference between Faisal and Julie.

    That is what we mean when we say that Faisal plays the race card. Julie does not play the gender card.

  43. 51st District Good Guy said on 22 May 2007 at 2:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    How the hell does Faisal make prejudice towards Muslims a FEATURE of his campaign? Just for that comment, you need to shut your mouth and if you do open it, think before you speak…

  44. John Light said on 22 May 2007 at 3:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you go to http://www.thesaturdaypost.com/rendezvous_89_faisal_gill.html you will see that Faisal made the following statement, “I do not see any value in Muslims and Pakistanis running for office if they hide their heritage.”

    Also, you notice that he does not run as “Faisal” on his signs, rather as a generic sounding “Gill.”

    Interesting - he states that “he does not see any value in Muslims and Pakistanis running for office if they hide their heritage” yet, he sends his kids to Catholic Schools and NOWHERE on his sign do you see his first name, Faisal, which CLEARLY identifies himself as Muslim/Pakistani.

    I would NOT have brought this up except for the fact that, well, Faisal said it. Just one more instance of his/his campaign double-speak.

  45. charles said on 22 May 2007 at 3:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wanted to correct another error, but this isn’t Greg’s,it’s JLight and ManassasInsider.

    JL said Weimmer outfiled Miller 2 to 1, and MI said Weimmer outfiled Miller 800/400. But according to Greg’s numbers last year, there were only 915 total delegates, not 1200.

    BTW, note that Julie and Faisal beat that number by quite a bit — again, congratulations to both of them for working hard and getting people to sign up.

    Further, Weimer was not that far ahead of Miller in delegates.

    At the convention, here was Greg’s report (which he noted might not have been completely accurate):

    Manassas City, total of 216 weighted votes has 235 for Miller and 263 for Weimer. Manassas Park, with 51 weighted votes, had 23 for Weimer and 26 for Miller. Prince William County, with 128 weighted votes, had 51 for Weimer and 62 for Miller. After the weighted tally is calculated, the total is 199.22 for Miller and 195.78 for Weimer.

    So Weimer had 263+23+51=337 delegates, Miller had 235+26+62=321 delegates (only 16 different). Miller barely won the proportional vote, because the Manassas City people were so over-filed that each vote was worth less than .5, while MP and PWC were each worth more than 1 vote.

    I’d love it if someone could find the ORIGINAL filing numbers broken down by candidate.

  46. Doug in Mount Vernon said on 22 May 2007 at 3:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why does a Muslim candidate WANT to run as a Republican, anyway, when obviously half the party will immediately associate him or her with terrorism simply because of his/her background?

    Just asking….

    As a Democratic observer, I find it fascinating that discussions of race, ethnicity, or religion would automatically entail a “card” being played. Not that there are any legitimate issues there, right?

  47. Had to Say said on 22 May 2007 at 3:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    If Gill wins we might lose the seat to a Democrat, that would be a shame. All of you who want something done with illegal aliens should vote for Julie.

  48. annonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 4:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Kopko has nothing to do with the filings or credentials of those that participate in any capacity with the convention.

    For those of you that think that this is the last that you will hear from the Lucas campaign about Gill’s relations to terrorists, you are sorely mistaken. The ability to sway the minds of those that have signed on as delegates won’t be as difficult as most would think. When you sign on as a delegate you are in no way making a promise to vote for that candidate, just a promise to participate in the voting process. People don’t want terrorists walking the halls of their government, nor do they want their friends either.

    I applaud the Lucas campaign for bringing this up in a tactful, yet to the point way and I look forward to seeing Julie Lucas move on to being the newest delegate for the 51st district.

  49. 51st District Good Guy said on 22 May 2007 at 4:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    What does Faisal sending his children to Catholic schools have to do with ANYTHING? Maybe, just maybe the best private schools in this are CATHOLIC schools… If his kids went on to go to a school such as Georgetown, I guess you would have a problem with that too, since Georgetown’s a Catholic/Jesuit school… Give it a rest man… Just because he’s Muslim, he’s supposed to send his kids to a Muslim school? It’s forbidden to send his kids to a Catholic school?

    GET YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR ASS AND THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK…

  50. Watching said on 22 May 2007 at 4:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Kopko has nothing to do with the filings or credentials of those that participate in any capacity with the convention.”

    While I agree with the rest of your post, this I have to laugh at. Kopko appoints the credentials committee, as chairman of the 51st. He could staff it with Gill supporters, and from what we have seen so far, he would do it without shame.

    Talk to Grey, who ran against Stewie, if you don’t believe that Kopko can influence who gets in or not.

  51. James Young said on 22 May 2007 at 5:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    The point, “51st District Good Guy,” would be that sending his children to an affirmatively, denominationally Christian school belies the notion that Gill is some sort of Muslim extremist implied by many of the posts and/or comments on this site.

    And “Watching,” that’s as asinine a comment as I’ve seen on this site. You seem to suggest that Corey Stewart won illegitimately over John Gray, whose last race was as a Democrat. Quit drinking the far Left… er, “moderate” Kool-Aid.

  52. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wrote: “However, Faisal makes his claim that he faces prejudice for being a Moslem a feature of his campaign.” A person with poor reading comprehension responded:

    “”"How the hell does Faisal make prejudice towards Muslims a FEATURE of his campaign?”"”

    I wrote , “However, Faisal makes his claim that he faces prejudice for being a Moslem a feature of his campaign.”

    We really do need Julie in Richmond to make certain that adults know how to read.

  53. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 5:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Gill is some sort of Muslim extremist implied by many of the posts and/or comments on this”"”

    Gill is probably not a Muslim extremist, he just works for and on behalf of them: his employers were the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council and sharia-law-in-the-US advocate Asim Ghafoor.

    Gill’s Gill and Gallinger/Gill and Ghafoor/Sapentia LLC partner Ghafoor is now suing the US government because it listened to Gill’s international calls speaking to representatives of the International Designated Terrorist Entity Al-Haramain.

    Ghafoor was also questioned by the FBI in 2004 regarding terrorist charities.

    http://goodbyeken.com/Cuccinelli/news/cuccinelli-endorsees-law-partner-questioned-by-fbi/

  54. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 5:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Correction: I meant, the US government listened to Ghafoor’s international calls. Not Gill’s.

  55. Anonymous said on 22 May 2007 at 8:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ghafoor is suing the FBI and Homeland Security. Some close associates of Gill work for the FBI and homeland security. I wonder if they all talk to each other or what?

  56. Jonathan Mark said on 22 May 2007 at 9:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”Some close associates of Gill work for the FBI and homeland security.”"

    Who are these close associates? Can you name any of them?

  57. charles said on 22 May 2007 at 9:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Watching said on 22 May 2007 at 4:53 pm:
    “Kopko appoints the credentials committee, as chairman of the 51st. He could staff it with Gill supporters,”

    The credentials commitee has already been chosen, and they met last night to start going through the ballots. The committee is made up equally of Gill and Lucas people.

  58. Watching said on 22 May 2007 at 10:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The credentials commitee has already been chosen, and they met last night to start going through the ballots. The committee is made up equally of Gill and Lucas people.”

    Who is the Chair? Is it a Gill or Lucas supporter? That is the swing vote. Answer that question, and you prove my point.

  59. Loudoun Insider said on 22 May 2007 at 11:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    I woould think that the credentials committee was chosen AFTER Kopko received $2,000 from Gill for consulting. But of course that would do nothing at all to sway Kopko’s decisions, would it?

  60. charles said on 23 May 2007 at 12:10 am:
    Flag comment

    LI, you are supposed to be a savvy political guy.

    Yes, the credentials committee was chosen “after” january, it was just chosen recently. They obviously couldn’t pick a committee until they had a real contest, and knew who was in it, and they didn’t know that until both candidates had paid their fees to be in the contest.

    Kopko told the candidates to pick members, and if the other campaign agreed he took them. That’s standard, although I imagine there have been times when a chair has been ruthless.

    If Lucas has a problem with the credentials committee I’d assume she’d have complained at the meeting last night. So I presume there is no real issue, and people here are just speculating without any knowledge.

    Watching: The credentials committee is “co-chaired” by two well-respected republicans, who I presume are supporting the two candidates. I can’t imagine the posters here, even John Light, could charge either of these two fine people with being crooked or unfair. Not that people here aren’t trying to do so indirectly with these comments from ignorance.

    It’s one of the funny things about this process. The plans just keep rolling on in the real world with nary a problem, while in this alternate universe people raise all these hypothetical “issues” with the “fairness” of the process.

  61. Jonathan Mark said on 23 May 2007 at 1:44 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"They obviously couldn’t pick a committee until they had a real contest, and knew who was in it, and they didn’t know that until both candidates had paid their fees to be in the contest.”"”

    Charles argues contradictory claims. On the one hand, Charles said that Kopko couldn’t pick a committee in January because perhaps someone else would run.

    On the other hand, Charles said that Kopko took $2000 from Gill in January because Kopko didn’t think that someone else would run.

    These two claims are inconsistent. Whatever reason Kopko had for delaying the formation of a committee would also have been a reason not to take $2000 from Gill.

  62. AWCheney said on 23 May 2007 at 1:45 am:
    Flag comment

    “The credentials commitee has already been chosen, and they met last night to start going through the ballots.”

    “Ballots,” Charles…Freudian slip?

  63. Watching said on 23 May 2007 at 5:53 am:
    Flag comment

    “The credentials committee is “co-chaired” by two well-respected republicans, who I presume are supporting the two candidates.”

    Wrong Charles. There is only one chair. Who is it? You seem to know who’s on the committee, so let’s have it, Charles.

  64. Anonymous said on 23 May 2007 at 1:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gill said in one speech that his brother worked for the feds.

  65. John Light said on 23 May 2007 at 2:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles: “I can’t imagine the posters here, even John Light, could charge either of these two fine people with being crooked or unfair.” - Jonathan must be REELING that he is no longer Charles’ whipping boy and that I am now the “target of opportunity” (a military phrase, Charles, maybe you heard it in a movie once) lol

  66. Jonathan Mark said on 23 May 2007 at 3:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Gill said in one speech that his brother worked for the feds.”"”

    So does mine. So does almost half of the northern Virginia workforce. However, that does not mean that his brother, or even that any of Gill’s friends, work for DHS, the FBI, etc., which was the original claim.

    They may. I asked who they are, if they exist.

  67. Anonymous said on 23 May 2007 at 3:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    That would be a question someone would have to ask of Mr. Gill.

    Mr. Gill talked about his family and how patriotic he is by being in the navy. His brother joined the army and then went into one of the agencies probably related to DHS or FBI or something else.

  68. Jonathan Mark said on 23 May 2007 at 4:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"into one of the agencies probably related to DHS or FBI or something else.”"”

    ‘probably related to…or something else?’ By definition everything in the universe is either A or it is something else besides A. Your statement thus encompasses the whole totality of human existence and could never be false.

    Wouldn’t it be better just to admit that you do not know, and retract your claim?

  69. 51st District Good Guy said on 23 May 2007 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Again, Jonathan Mark, you need to get your head …

    [Ed note: comment edited]

  70. Anonymous said on 23 May 2007 at 4:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Others seem to know that Faisal’s brother is in the FBI, so does Faisal’s brother investigate Faisal?

    Or does he question Faisal law partner?

  71. Jonathan Mark said on 23 May 2007 at 6:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Faisal’s brother is in the FBI”"”

    What is the basis for this statement? His brother may very well be in the FBI, and that is fine with me. But who says so?

  72. Anonymous said on 23 May 2007 at 6:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    51st district good guy says so. Plus mr. Gill may have said it in one of his speeches.

  73. Parilis said on 23 May 2007 at 7:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Even if Faisal’s brother is in the FBI, he has no reason to investigate him. If he did, with all the publicity that all this is getting I’m pretty sure they would have put him away by now. The government isn’t that stupid. And overall all this arguing back and forth gets us nowhere, all that matters is who turns out the most solid delegates. We can sit here and scream that Faisal is a terrorist supporter and Juilie is the best candidate we’ve ever seen in our life, but that does absolutely nothing. This is all in the hands of the two campaigns.

  74. Anonymous said on 23 May 2007 at 10:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Some government entity is tapping the phones of Gill’s law partner. I presume it may be at the law firm. Otherwise why would Gill’s partner sue the federal government, FBI, homeland security, george Bush and others for illegal wire taps.

    The government designated a group that Gill’s partner represents a terrorist supporting group. If you google Faisal Gill there will be all sorts of reasons to investigate groups associated with Gill.

    I am sure they monitor alamoudi correspondence from his prison cell.

  75. charles said on 24 May 2007 at 1:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark said on 23 May 2007 at 1:44 am:

    “Charles argues contradictory claims. On the one hand, Charles said that Kopko couldn’t pick a committee in January because perhaps someone else would run. On the other hand, Charles said that Kopko took $2000 from Gill in January because Kopko didn’t think that someone else would run. These two claims are inconsistent. Whatever reason Kopko had for delaying the formation of a committee would also have been a reason not to take $2000 from Gill.”

    Wrong, JM. I said they couldn’t pick the committee until they knew who all the candidates were, which they couldn’t know until everybody had filed. If only one person filed, there would be no need to pick a committee, so until Kopko knew there was a second candidate there was no “delay” forming the committee, as there was no committee needed.

    And “I” didn’t say the second thing either, Tom Kopko said it and I reported what he said.

  76. charles said on 24 May 2007 at 1:06 am:
    Flag comment

    AWCheney said on 23 May 2007 at 1:45 am:
    (Charles wrote):“The credentials commitee has already been chosen, and they met last night to start going through the ballots.”

    “Ballots,” Charles…Freudian slip?”

    Well, I wasn’t thinking about having sex with them, if that’s what you mean. :-)

    Nope, I meant delegate forms. They aren’t ballots.

    The co-chairs of the Credentials Committee are Mike May and Michelle McQuigg.

    Anybody want to say those two aren’t trustworthy? I presume they were acceptable to the two candidates, but maybe someone here would like to smear these two fine people as well to make a laughable point.

    I understand that each campaign also has a staff person on the committee.

  77. charles said on 24 May 2007 at 1:15 am:
    Flag comment

    John Light,

    I use your full name to keep from getting confused with Johnathan Mark. You’re hardly my “whipping boy”, I just like to address each person’s arguments with their names so they know I am responding. Or in this case, since you have expressed concerns with the committee assignments, to call to your attention my assertion that the credentials committee is above reproach.

    Since you have personally attacked me several times in these discussions, I thought you wanted more personal attention. And on a serious note, if I say anything that you feel is too personal an attack, please let me know here or in an e-mail, and I’ll fix it. My intent is not to make this “personal” in that sense, but rather to personalize my responses to those who make comments.

    Watching, the co-chairs are Mike May and Michelle McQuigg. Do you think one of them is more “co-chair” than the other? :-)

  78. charles said on 24 May 2007 at 1:17 am:
    Flag comment

    On the other hand, John Mark’s posts have become boring and repetitive, not to mention tedious, so I’ve lost interest. Plus I’m miffed that I keep setting aside time to watch for him at all these places he says he’ll be, and then he never shows up. :-)

  79. Jonathan Mark said on 24 May 2007 at 2:23 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"The co-chairs of the Credentials Committee are Mike May and Michelle McQuigg.”"”

    Michelle McQuigg was on the podium at Faisal’s March 31. 2007 campaign kickoff. She told the crowd that she was voting for Faisal.

    Mike May just renominated Faisal for the PWC Housing Board.

    This absolutely stinks.

  80. Jonathan Mark said on 24 May 2007 at 2:28 am:
    Flag comment

    In January 2007 Kopko delayed whatever it was he does if there is only one candidate, because he rightly thought that there might be other candidates.

    Yet in January Kopko accepted money from Faisal Gill on the grounds that he didn’t think there would be other candidates.

    Kopko’s behavior is contradictory. If he took money from Gill because he thought that there were not going to be any other candidates then why didn’t he certify Gill as the party’s nominee then?

  81. Watching said on 24 May 2007 at 8:04 am:
    Flag comment

    “Michelle McQuigg was on the podium at Faisal’s March 31. 2007 campaign kickoff. She told the crowd that she was voting for Faisal.

    Mike May just renominated Faisal for the PWC Housing Board.

    This absolutely stinks.”

    John Mark, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    See Charles? This is called Intellectual Honesty. You might want to acquaint yourself with this term.

  82. 51st District Good Guy said on 24 May 2007 at 9:26 am:
    Flag comment

    I have a question for all the naysayers… If (Read: When) Faisal wins the election on June 2nd, will you support him in November for the General Election? Or will you refuse to vote? It seems to me, and I’m sure to others as well, that if Faisal wins on June 2nd, a majority of people who follow this blog will cry foul… If he loses on June 2nd, you guys will still be attacking him… You guys aren’t really voting FOR Julie Lucas… You’re just voting AGAINST Faisal Gill…

  83. Jonathan Mark said on 24 May 2007 at 9:54 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"If (Read: When) Faisal wins the election on June 2nd, will you support him in November for the General Election?”"”

    Since I don’t live in the 51st, I will answer the question differently.

    If Faisal is the nominee then we will alert those who have opposed Faisal in the past as to what happened. You can see who those people are by simply googling Faisal Gill.

    One of the posters here already discussed Gill’s current activities with Michelle Malkin, who expressed interest. If Gill were the nominee then Gill’s candidacy would go from being a potential problem to a concrete threat. It would become worth writing about.

    We will make sure that everyone knows who was responsible for the Gill nomination. That includes Gill’s 3/31/07 endorsees Ken Cuccinelli and Bill Bolling.

    It is completely possible that a second negative swarm of anti-Gill material will flood the web. Efforts will also be made to feed information about Gill’s terror lobbyist/foul driving/Asim Ghafoor/Abdurahman Alamoudi/immigration law firm partner past and present to the Dems.

    The Dems will have several hundred thousand to spend on this race, and they will pick the anti-Gill information which they want to use, as Julie does now.

    Anyone who thinks that Faisal and his backers Cuccinelli, Bolling, Lingamfelter and Stewart are in the clear if Gill is the nominee had better think again.

  84. Watching said on 24 May 2007 at 11:53 am:
    Flag comment

    “Anyone who thinks that Faisal and his backers Cuccinelli, Bolling, Lingamfelter and Stewart are in the clear if Gill is the nominee had better think again.”

    Don’t forget McQuigg! She’s got a lot to lose here. She has chosen to support Gill, as her successor, instead of remaining neutral. Lucy Beauchamp could have a field-day with this. I am sure that there was some pressure applied by Kopko, against McQuigg, to support Gill (as in, support Gill, you get a friendly convention). I was supporting McQuigg for Clerk, but now I have doubts about her judgement too.

  85. AWCheney said on 24 May 2007 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe Kopko’s promise involved doing everything in his power to force Lucy out of the contest between them?

  86. John Light said on 24 May 2007 at 1:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Concerning Kopko, he had already done the work for Faisal when he asked Julie if she wanted a Convention or a Primary. Then, the very next day, he accepted the money which Kopko FIRST reported to be $1000, then amended to $2000.

Comments are closed.


Views: 3487