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

Grave Concerns Over Faisal Gill

By Greg L | 8 January 2007 | 51st HOD District | 34 Comments

Republican hopeful Faisal Gill was at Bob Fitzsimmond’s fundraiser last week, busily pressing the flesh with other conservatives active in Prince William County politics, and trying to line up support for a campaign he has been determined to wage ever since it became clear that Michele McQuigg was not going to run for re-election in the 51st District. I’ve heard he’s been pretty successful in lining up support amongst folks like Delegate Scott Lingamfelter, Senator Ken Cuccinelli and candidate BoB Fitzsimmonds — all of whom I really like and respect. They’re supporting a fellow conservative, which is natural. They’re also supporting someone with a very questionable past, which for these folks is absolutely not.

Unfortunately we often know less about our friends than our opponents, and that lack of knowledge in this case could be somewhat dangerous. So instead of waiting for the most politically opportune time to start posting research on Faisal Gill, it’s probably worth putting this information out there so that many of my friends have an opportunity to re-evaluate their support before enough is provided that they will be caught in the backsplash. They got support from, and intend to provide support from a fellow conservative they probably don’t know well enough. So it’s time to start telling the story.

Many of us have already heard about the “Faisal Gill Affair” in which Michele Malkin and other nationally known bloggers reported extensively about Faisal Gill’s association with convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. In a nutshell, Faisal Gill neglected to mention in his application for a security clearance with the Department of Homeland Security as a Bush appointee that he had an association with this jihadist — a potential felony violation. He was put on leave, and then reinstated to the position without much in the way of explanation, but apparently after Grover Norquist applied a little pressure. It’s a huge story that was covered on howesteet.com, Frontpage Magazine, Salon.com, and of course Michelle Malkin. If you google “Faisal Gill”, you’ll see hundreds of references to this.

I’m sure Faisal Gill is dismissing this scandal as a simple misunderstanding. I’m pretty certain it’s not. You see Faisal Gill has been the director of government affairs for the Islamic Free Market Institute and the American Muslim Council (which supported Hamas and Hezbollah) under it’s principal Asim Ghafoor. Mr. Ghafoor apparently also worked with a number of organizations tied to the “Safa Group” including the Global Relief Foundation which had it’s assets frozen by the Treasury Department in 2001, the Committee to Free Rabih Haddad which supported a deported islamic radical, and Makhtab al-Khidamat (MAK) which was the precursor to the terrorist organization Al Quaida. He was also associated with Care International of Boston, which was linked to the first World Trade Center bombing, and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth which has ties to Osama Bin Laden. (see source: United States Senate Finance Committee)

We [Muslims] are here [in the U.S.] not just to be nice to people, not to say great things about people, but to bring truth and justice and Islamic ways to this country….you should rule by Islam otherwise you’re a Kafir (unbeliever, non-Muslim). — Asim Ghafoor

Mr. Ghafoor is now Faisal Gill’s partner in the law firm of Gill & Gallinger. His long-term close association with Asim Ghafoor certainly belies the notion that Faisal Gill was only briefly caught up in an association with a known terrorist. Indeed, it seems that Mr. Gill’s association with questionable islamic radicals has been consistent during his entire professional career. When Faisal Gill started showing up in political circles in Prince William County, political donations from the Safa Group started showing up in the hands of Republican candidates such as Steve Chapman, Bob Fitzsimmonds, Ken Cuccinelli and Dick Black. The Safa Group, a collection of Muslim run businesses centered in Herndon and raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2002 for funneling money to terrorists, is linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, which conducts terrorist attacks in Egypt and supports Hamas and Al-Quaida. Democrats Jim Moran and Hillary Clinton have also recieved donations from the Safa Group, but have returned them [correction: Moran hasn’t returned all of them — see update below].

After the federal authorities started tightening the screws on the finances of the Safa Group, the donations coming from entities such as Mar-Jac Investments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Mena Investments, Mena Estates, and a host of others started to abate, a new source of large campaign finance contributions seemed to pop up — Faisal Gill. Faisal had been giving a few donations a year in increments of a few hundred dollars until mid-2005 when Faisal suddenly weighed in with $12,000 in donations to Bill Bolling in one year. Now I like Bill Bolling as well, and if I had 12,000 extra dollars lying around that I didn’t know what to do with, I’d consider sending it off to him. But the timing and this uncharacteristic burst of political donations, which hasn’t been seen since, at least raises the question whether these were laundered Safa Group donations. There’s probably no way to absolutely determine the source of these funds, but someone has to raise this question, and I doubt other Republicans will.

And yet, there’s more, but that will have to wait for another day. In the meantime I hope those planning on providing support for Faisal Gill’s campaign for the House of Delegates take some time to think about what would happen in a General Election against a Democrat who could at least string together a few coherent sentences. Given a choice between someone who has associated with terrorists, and a Democrat with a heartbeat, the outcome of such a race would not at all favor the terrorist supporter. The downside of being associated with the Faisal Gill campaign could potentially be enormous — far more than the fallout of the Steven Chapman affair, which involved much more comedy than dark and disturbing overtones of islamic jihadists bent on imposing sharia (islamic law) on the United States. Chapman was funny. Gill is darkly serious. This is a campaign that conservatives would be well advised to keep their distance from.

UPDATE: The folks at GoodbyeJim clarify that Jim Moran has returned most, but not all of the campaign contributions of the Safa Group and provides a lot of details regarding this group’s activities. It’s definitely worth a visit.



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.

34 Comments

  1. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 8 Jan 2007 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    The support from the social social conservatives comes as no suprise to me. As a social conservative this really bothers me.
    Anyone remember MarJac???

  2. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 4:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Faisal’s law firm represents Steve Chapman in his lawsuit against you, does it, Greg?

  3. Greg L said on 8 Jan 2007 at 4:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    James, I would have been on this regardless. How in the world are we going to win elections in Prince William County if we put up as candidates folks who Michelle Malkin has excoriated on her site. This is the kind of candidate that will cost republican seats in the house.

    I discovered a lot of this information during the course of researching for the Chapman lawsuit, and much of it I might not have otherwise found. That’s about the only link with the Chapman lawsuit, in that Gill gave me a reason to dig into his background that I might not have otherwise had. I needed to find out who I was dealing with, and I found a lot more than I thought I would.

    I wish I hadn’t. If Gill wasn’t tied up into all this mess, his positions on the issues would have probably elicited my support. I am supporting Bob Fitzsimmonds who also had ties to Steve Chapman but based on his positions and record I think he’s the best candidate. If I was motivates solely by an animosity for Chapman, I’d probably be throwing Bob under the bus, and I’m not.

    But it’s a good question to ask, and I’m glad you did.

  4. Batson D. Belfrey said on 8 Jan 2007 at 4:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    Thanks for putting this out there, and connecting the dots in an fashion that the MJM is just too lazy or scared to do.

    Why am I not surprised that James Young has jump in and comment. Does he dispute the facts? No. Does he offer any facts that contradict yours? No. He’s more than happy to attack the messenger, as he did in the Chapman case. If you are putting out the facts about Dions’ living arrangements or Rishell’s links to EZLN, he’s either with you, or neutral. But should you write about one his fellow conservatives, look out. He will hijack your threads, complain about you on other blogs, and even his own, although few read it.

    James is symptomatic of the problem in PWC. They have good GOP candidates, some moderate, and some conservative. They also have some very bad candidates, like Chapman, and Gill. The leadership and even some of the elected officials choose to ignore the “warts” and weaknesses. Gill’s skeletons still have meat on them. They want us to ignore the warts too. Why? Because they are conservatives

    And don’t give me that crap about “if he had done something illegal, then he would be in jail”. The USDOJ is a mess. They investigate the hell out of the so-called “Plame Leak Case”, but Congressman Jefferson (D-LA) is filmed taking bribes, caught with $140K in cold cash in his freezer, and nothing happens to him.

    If Chapman had remembered to file, and been nominated, Rishell would have won. Of this I have no doubt. If Gill gets the nomination, Republicans lose this seat. No Doubt.

    Greg, keep on this one. Get the story out. Republicans can’t afford to nominate someone like this.

  5. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 5:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Batson” should probably grow up, since I hardly “hijack[ed] your thread.” However, he/she demonstrates the propriety of his/her pseudonym with his/her unqualified endorsement of what appears to be little more than innuendo and guilt by association. As for being “symptomatic of the problem in PWC,” while he hides behind a pseudonym, I’ll stand on my record of participation, sometimes even leadership, in bringing the GOP to predominance in PWC. When “Batson” has a similar record, perhaps then he/she will be qualified to diagnose “the problem in PWC.” More likely, he/she is part of “the problem in PWC,” i.e., uninvolved but loudmouthed naysayers who seek to destroy every good thing that the conservative leadership of the PWC GOP has accomplished, while they themselves have accomplished nothing, nor even labored in the vineyard.

    That having been said, I have long recognized that one of the dangers of a successful political movement is that it can get any idiot elected to public office, and frequently does. Whether Faisal qualifies as such is the question raised by this thread, and one that I believe to be suspect. Of course, “Batson,” I don’t respond to Greg’s facts, because Greg doesn’t really offer “facts,” he offers guilt by association, and innuendo. He likewise offers guilt by association which seems designed to tar other GOP candidates and elected officials. I suspect that the real objection that some have to Faisal’s associations is the one he had with Grover Norquist, who has worked quite successfully to frustrate the efforts of tax advocates in the GOP.

    As for Faisal, I have hardly declared support for anyone in this race. But I am highly suspicious of serial innuendo. To paraphrase a Republican who was once tarred with accusations of malfeasance, but ultimately vindicated, “To what office does Faisal go to get his reputation back?”

  6. Batson D. Belfrey said on 8 Jan 2007 at 6:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I’ll stand on my record of participation, sometimes even leadership”

    James,

    “Show Up and Throw Up” is what you are about. Everyone knows it. Leadership isn’t about yelling louder than the next guy. Leadership is making sure that the PWC isn’t put in the position of having to polish a turd, because an ill informed electorate has know idea who they are nominating. Leadership is making sure that the facts get out. Greg is a leader. Furthermore, Greg has done more to promote conservatives in his AO, than you have. You may have been a force sometime ago, but you are nothing now. You are just a tiresome bore who has a little dog complex.

  7. Shaun Kenney said on 8 Jan 2007 at 7:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Greg,

    If there was a problem, why did Homeland Security leave Gill in place — after their investigation?

    What precisely is Gill’s relationship to this “Safa Group”?
    When did Norquist become a sympathizer with Islamic terrorism?
    What does Norquist have in common with al-Amoudi?
    More importantly, what does Gill have in common with al-Amoudi?

    There’s the part that seems so thin… where’s the evidence that Gill is associated with this character, other than an investigation DHS conducted and found to be groundless, reinstating Gill?

    I think that’s your missing link. Lots of information, but no bridge so far… but it is a lot of information, so maybe there’s a part 2 to this story?

    Regards,

  8. Shaun Kenney said on 8 Jan 2007 at 7:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    You may have been a force sometime ago, but you are nothing now. You are just a tiresome bore who has a little dog complex.

    A sure way to know you are still a force, and still a big dog… heh.

    Like the name though.

  9. Citizen Tom said on 8 Jan 2007 at 8:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    I suppose we will all have to do a little research; we should be careful who we elect to public office. Nonetheless, I caution everyone to remember a basic facet of logic. It is often impossible to prove something is not true. For example, Senator Allen says “macaca,” and that simple pronouncement is used to “prove” he is a bigot.

    Greg, if you are going to post this kind of material about somebody, then you have a moral obligation be more than pretty certain that it is not a simple misunderstanding. Without substantive proof, this post reeks of scurrilous innuendo and guilt by association.

    This is the difference between flinging mud and throwing rocks. Because mud has no substance, the person who throws it also becomes covered with mud. Do you know for a fact that Faisal Gill has committed a crime?

    If Gill has a security clearance, what more can he do to prove he has done nothing wrong? As Shaun suggests, you better have something more to offer in your next post on this subject.

  10. Shaun Kenney said on 8 Jan 2007 at 8:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let me clarify a bit — I certainly am *not* suggesting that Greg is off his rocker.

    I am saying that the link between Gill and thius al-Amoudi character is a bit weak as-is.

    Now I’ve done research papers, research, presentations, etc and been in situations where I had more information than I knew what to do with, and missed key parts. So I just want to see whether the link between Gill and al-Amoudi is there — or not.

  11. James Young said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thanks for the support, Shaun. As usual, you manage to make points at greater length than I initially did, with which I am happy to associate myself.

    I, too, find it humorous to be declared a nonentity by someone who hides behind a pseudonym, suggesting that he has something to hide, or perhaps more accurately, nothing to hide. Though that comment suggests that he’s someone who couldn’t win a GOP nomination for Sheriff, and has been attacking Republicans ever since.

  12. Citizen Tom said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Shaun, I do not think Greg is off his rocker either. However, the government does not give just anybody a security clearance. Given the curiosity in this matter, I also think it would preposterous to say Gill connections have not been thoroughly investigated.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126719,00.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128743,00.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128826,00.html

    Unless Greg can produce some facts that dedicate otherwise, perhaps we should move onto something else.

  13. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 8 Jan 2007 at 10:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would consider Michelle Malkin a VERY reliable source and she has said some not so nice things about Gill in her past blog. Like the rest of us here, I really don’t understand all the connections but there is enough here to make it very difficult to impossible for Gill to win a general election right now.

  14. Greg L said on 8 Jan 2007 at 11:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tom - what you have to remember is that this was a political appointee. Appointees get special treatment by the executive branch because they are being put in that position by the head of the executive branch. When you have influential people like Grover Norquist getting some chips cashed in with these appointments, it makes it really tough for anyone to stand up and say “wait a minute, here”.

    I believe Gill made a materially false statement on a security clearance request, and that is strongly documented. That’s a felony. If anyone in different circumstances did that, they’d be in a heap of trouble. But when these questions are raised about a political appointee with big-time connections, he seemingly gets kit-glove treatment and is reinstated into his position.

    “Sorry, it just slipped my mind that I worked for a convicted terrorist”? I’ve been through that process, and I darned sure was asked a lot of probing questions and documented the heck out of my life because it was made clear to me that a lie or an intentional omission would be a big problem. It doesn’t wash.

    I’ll follow this up with another post soon since some folks just can’t seem to get it. I figured that the Alamoudi thing had already been talked to death already, but I guess I’m going to have to go through it myself.

  15. Jonathan Mark said on 8 Jan 2007 at 11:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear Mr. Li:

    The Safa Group were neither conservatives nor liberals, but were attempting to buy influence from both Jim Moran and social conservatives such as Dick Black. I have posted at GoodbyeJim.com (http://www.goodbyejim.com/1168314983/index_html) a listing of Moran’s fundraising among and efforts on behalf of the Safa Group. Moran has yet to return the last of the contributions he received from Safa Group officials, a $1000 contribution from Fakhri al-Barzinji on 10/15/04.

    Local Republicans might wish to ask themselves why the allegedly Republican Gill was active on behalf of a group that was funding Jim Moran.

  16. Citizen Tom said on 8 Jan 2007 at 11:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    In this reference (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128826,00.html), DHS says point blank:

    “DHS is confident that our security clearance process is effective. Mr. Gill was thoroughly vetted at several levels. Mr. Gill did not withhold information on government forms required to initiate government security clearance processing and has been cooperative throughout the process.”

    We have some conflicting stories. While I will concede that politicians make special rules for themselves, this story had some high level interest, but relatively little press coverage. There was smoke, but not enough to interest the big boys very long. Mostly, some blogs took off with this story. I have to wonder why.

    It will be interesting to see where you go with this.

  17. Greg L said on 9 Jan 2007 at 12:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan,

    Great follow-up — I’ve updated the post and I’m asking my readers to go read it. Looks like you’ve been on the trail for a while as well…

  18. charles said on 9 Jan 2007 at 12:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Michelle is a good writer, but she gets some stuff really wrong, and sometimes is just repeating things she hears from other sources.

    She is a “sensationalist”, which is easy enough to do, as Greg demonstrates in this post. You can string a bunch of seemingly related stuff together and make it look like something that it’s not, kind of like you watch football and think it a blizzard and then realise it’s just the way the camera’s zoom blends all the flakes together.

    If you want to believe that the same Bush administration that is taking serious flak for shutting down Muslim “charities” that were tied to terrorism also interfered with an investigation to hide the “terrorist ties” of a low-level political appointee, it’s pretty easy to throw a bunch of stuff out and pretend you’ve connected the dots.

    Sometimes bad people really do their deeds in secret, and people just don’t know.

    But we can always blame people for not knowing, and sound “reasonable” I guess. Although then you have to wonder why we haven’t already arrested all the bad guys, since it’s so easy for people to know they are bad people just by knowing them.

    My point, to be more obvious, is that even if you presume that all the claims of “terrorist ties” are true regarding the players, that doesn’t make everybody who was friendly with those players “terrorist sympathisers”.

    I guess if Faisal is associated with terrorists, then I must be associated with terrrorists by my passing aquantance with Faisal. And Greg, you are a member of the same organization as Faisal, better watch out or you may have the FBI questioning you, obviously the PWC Republican committee is a terrorist organization.

    Back to reality — on it’s face, it is absurd to believe that Faisal Gill has any relationship with terrorists, or is a terrorist sympathiser, or that a democrat candidate could get anywhere with baseless charges based on such flimsy evidence. It is inconceivable that the fine people you mention as supporting Faisel are all ignoring his “terrorist ties” out of some bizarre form of “loyalty”.

    You think Denny Daugherty is supporting terrorists, or supporting someone who supports terrorists? You think the government is keeping in its employ, and with a clearance, a person with terrorist ties? You think Michelle Malkin’s 2004 report still holds ANY WEIGHT?

    At least (I think) you have put just enough weasel words into your post, and referenced enough other people’s opinions rather than your own, to avoid being more directly charged with libel, but you may not be far from it — and accusing someone of being a terrorist sympathiser is certainly a pretty inflammatory charge.

    What is it about the positions on issues, or what his goals and principles are, that you think make him unfit for office?

  19. Greg L said on 9 Jan 2007 at 12:49 am:
    Flag comment

    How much coincidence is required before it stops being a coincidence? That his mentor from the American Muslim Council, which had demonstrable ties to terrorism is now his current law partner who is calling for sharia law in the United States? That every campaign he is a part of seems to end up with political contributions from the Safa Group, which has links to terrorism?

    A lot of credible people, including US Senators, have raised questions about Faisal Gill that haven’t gotten answers. If he wants to run for office those questions need answers and until they’re provided conservatives should stay away.

  20. Mike Wooten said on 9 Jan 2007 at 7:33 am:
    Flag comment

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am supporting Faisal Gill, and I am active in his campaign. If that undermines my credibility with the reader, then read no further. The basic allegations that emerged a few years ago suggested a questionable link between Gill and Islamic extremists. I have read many blogs about Gill, which lead to the same conclusions–that Gill demonstrates Norquist’s ties to “questionable” Muslims and that Norquist wields political clout even when it is counter to national security. The build up of Gill was made to build up the “evils of Norquist,” who has the gall to come between politicians and our wallets.
    So what about the build up of Gill? Did he fail to provide information that he should have provided? The answer is no, but the complete truth would not have served the purposes of these blogs. Fact #1. Gill disclosed associations with AMC and other organizations on his financial disclosure form at the same time that he submitted his SF86. The SF86 calls for employment. Gill was never employed by AMC; his relationship there was more similar to contractor work. This is not quibbling because — again, Gill did disclose his association with AMC–he disclosed it on the proper form. EXPECT GILL TO PUT THIS INFORMATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS OUT BY THE END OF JANUARY. By the way, I have copies of Gill’s financial disclosure just as I had copies of information I released about Porta. We should do our homework and deal in the facts.
    As for the other questions raised on January 8, Gill can and will answer those. Scruitiny of funds is always a good thing. On the outset, I can tell you that Gill was a Naval Officer on active duty until 2001, a political appointee for the next few years, which everyone knows. (His political appointment was the issue in the blogs) The point being that Gill could not afford substantial contributions as a government employee. As a businessman, he has done well. As Greg L pointed out, Gill’s success has come about at the same time as SAFA funds dried up, so Gill will need to address this. I am confident that he can.

  21. Citizen Tom said on 9 Jan 2007 at 7:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Coincidence? Coincidence is not proof. Consider how you responded when James made this coincidence: “of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Faisal’s law firm represents Steve Chapman in his lawsuit against you, does it, Greg?” Moreover, people have raised questions.

    Greg, you have an interesting blog, and you put a lot of work into it. The result is that people read it. That gives you the responsibility to maintain high standards. Please be careful that you do.

  22. Shaun Kenney said on 9 Jan 2007 at 8:49 am:
    Flag comment

    Hey Greg,

    I applaud efforts to root out the corrupt and any vestige of Islamic terrorism. Sunshine does wonders.

    Still, I don’t see the link. Correlation does not imply causality.

    The DHS statement on Gill was pretty ironclad:

    “DHS is confident that our security clearance process is effective. Mr. Gill was thoroughly vetted at several levels. Mr. Gill did not withhold information on government forms required to initiate government security clearance processing and has been cooperative throughout the process.”

    That ends it. An innocent man was charged, an innocent man was exonerated, at least according to the DHS.

    Now if there’s a connection between Gill and the Safa Group, I’d like to see that (seeing as this is the second link in this story), but where is it?

    Interesting stuff and great research, but it’s missing that one itty bitty piece that makes this grave matter.

    Regards,

  23. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 9 Jan 2007 at 11:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank you Mike for your perspective from the side of the Gill campaign. It just seems right now there are so many questions with very little answers. If this all these accusations are false then shame on the bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and others who have accused him of all sorts of terrible things. I would urge all readers to move with caution and just look at the facts and see were it goes from there.

    As for the electablity issue, right now there appears to be just too much political baggage right now to make this even a competitive race. The dems will certainly use this stuff even if Mr. Gill has been exonerated.

  24. Citizen Tom said on 9 Jan 2007 at 12:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    10thdistrictrepublican - If baggage is idle speculation that somebody makes up, then we all have baggage. No one is electable.

    Give the man chance. Gossip is an age old problem. We have to pick a candidate who has a clean record and knows how to refute gossip.

  25. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 9 Jan 2007 at 1:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    The problem is this stuff is not completely made up. I greatly respect Michelle Malkin’s opinion and I agree the dots do not seem to be connecting in places. People like yourself may not agree with this, but he does have some baggage and I do not think Michelle Malkin has made a living in the past based on sheer gossip. I just don’t see a lot of electablity on his part right now just based on what I have read from Malkin.

  26. Jonathan Mark said on 9 Jan 2007 at 1:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have posted one of many statements that Faisal Gill’s mentor Grover Norquist has made in which Norquist those who criticize Norquist’s allies of being prejudiced against Moslems. Here is one example, in which criticism of Faisal Gill’s employer the American Muslim Council was conflated by Norquist with anti-Muslim prejudice.

    http://www.goodbyejim.com/1168365846/index_html

    If you Republicans want to nominate the Jim Moran and Abdurahman Alamoudi ally Faisal Gill for office, be my guest. I guarantee you that a holy host of bloggers will raise holy hell about it, just as we did when some wanted to nominate Jim Moran’s ally Harris Miller.

    And it won’t be just us libs doing it. So go ahead. Make our day. Nominate former American Muslim Council employee Faisal Gill, who reported to the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    Do so, and let the fireworks begin. I will leave no stone unturned to highlight the first, second, third and fourth degree associations between Gill and both Jim Moran and Abdurahman Alamoudi. Perhaps I will be successful in gaining a wider audience. Perhaps not. Try me.

  27. Jonathan Mark said on 9 Jan 2007 at 1:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    The above should have read “Norquist accuses those who criticize Norquist’s allies of being prejudiced against Moslems.”

  28. Greg L said on 9 Jan 2007 at 2:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, there are some things which deserve getting decisions that aren’t informed by the potential for political gain, and concerns regarding the influence of islamicists in our government certainly should be one of those. At the very least these discussions will help to demonstrate to current and future leaders that exercizing caution when special interests come knocking on the door is a wise course of action.

    Left, right & center we are after all (I hope) Americans together who want to preserve the best of our country, and through our debate chart a responsible course for the future.

  29. Loudoun Insider said on 9 Jan 2007 at 5:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Once again I would love to see how many of those decrying this as another “smear campaign” would be reacting if this were a Democrat. This is more than a few coincidences and really begs the question of why he chooses to associate with such people and organizations.

  30. charles said on 10 Jan 2007 at 12:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Like most large organizations, a group like AMC has turned out to have been a group that both good americans, and terrorists, decided to use.

    If it turned out a terrorist went to my church, I would hope that wouldn’t disqualify me since I belonged to an “organization” that “harbored” terrorists.

    Guilt by association is a cheap political trick, one used by lazy people who are usually bigoted but want to seem reasonable.

  31. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 10 Jan 2007 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Guilt by association is a cheap political trick”-

    I hardly think discussion of this whole “affair” could be called a political dirty trick. The dems are going to bring up this same stuff and even possibly more. If Gill were to win the nomination we would be handing a seat right to the dems. This has NOTHING to do with the fact Gill is a Muslim, but who he has chosen to associate himself with. Any Republican who has taken money from SAFA is incredibly irresponsible in my opinion.

  32. James Young said on 10 Jan 2007 at 7:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sure they will, “10thdistrictrepublican.” Especially since it’s been given credence by Republicans, and an “Amen!” chorus of those pseudonymously claiming to be Republicans.

  33. Faisal Gill: On Trial in the Court of Public Opinion « Citizen Tom said on 17 Feb 2007 at 6:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    […] Gill: On Trial in the Court of Public Opinion BVBL has on post on Faisal Gill that risks being libelous. When you read Greg L. post, please be very careful to […]

Comments are closed.


Views: 3441