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

Faisal Gill In The Crosshairs

By Greg L | 18 January 2007 | 51st HOD District | 13 Comments

The folks over at GoodbyeJim seem to be working on an interesting plan to take down Faisal Gill, which should prove rather amusing. At the very least, trying to document who is showing up to suport Faisal Gill will make for some interesting comedy, as elected officials start becoming very wary of whom they pose with for pictures. Will someone manage to get a photo of Sharia law in the United States advocate Asim Ghafoor alongside Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling? Or how about Senator Ken Cuccunelli alongside Gill & Gallinger attorney laughingstock Jad Sansour, teaching him how to spell the word “counselor”, as in “counselor at law”? Perhaps the burka will enjoy a fashion revival as elected officials attempt to protect their future political prospects. Or not.

The webpage at faisalgill.com is now requiring a password for access, which either indicates they have a demo up for evaluation by the campaign, or that Faisal Gill isn’t too keen on sharing his agenda with the voters. If you access the site using port 443 (use https instead of http in the URL) you get a page promoting huberspace.net, a web design firm from Leesburg that decided to leave somewhat of a back door open on it’s webserver. Not a huge screw up, but one of what will probably be many that I’ll be expecting to see out of the Faisal Gill campaign. If Faisal Gill runs his own campaign half as badly as he did Steve Chapman’s 2006 bid for the House of Delegates, we’re in for a lot of fun.

I’ll bet GoodbyeJim will help a lot in that regard, and quite a few others will likely join in. Stay tuned for an interesting political season.



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.

13 Comments

  1. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 18 Jan 2007 at 3:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Huberspace.net is run by Jim Huber who is a good guy. I met him through Young Republicans a number of years ago when he was a member of the Arlington YRs. He ran for Leesburg Town Council in 2004.

    He’s also a great cartoonist. Check out this one: http://www.jimhuber.org/news/article.php?id=357

  2. Jonathan Mark said on 18 Jan 2007 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    The most annoying thing about Gill supporters is their insistence that if you oppose Gill then you oppose all Moslems.

    There are all kinds of people in this world. There are kinds of Jews. There are all kinds of Moslems. There are all kinds of Christians and Americans and Israelis and Palestinians and so on.

    Some are good. Some are bad.

    It cannot be that if we have specific complaints about a specific person that Gill supporters, who think of themselves as conservatives no less, insist that we are against all Moslems.

    Let’s see. Where have we heard that before. We have heard that from extreme liberals who support Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. Sharpton and Farrakhan, like Gill, have never been convicted of crimes.

    Some people have suggested that Farrakhan had something to do with the murder of Malcolm X. But Farrakhan was never charged.

    Some people have questioned Sharpton’s finances. But Sharpton was never charged.

    And the extreme liberals say that if you oppose Sharpton or Farrakhan then you are prejudiced against all blacks. Why do they say that? Becuase in their confused minds if you oppose Sharpton or Farrakhan and those two are black then you must oppose those two because they are black.

    And now, incredibly, we have people who see through Farrakhan and Sharpton’s race baiting, but themselves engage in it on behalf of Gill, and insist that if you oppose Gill then you are prejudiced against Muslims.

    That is Gill’s story, and he is sticking to it. But I would hope that PWC Republicans, and even some of the more-open minded Gill supporters, would Google for information about Alamoudi, and federal agent David Kane’s affidavit about Safa, and so on and reach their own conclusions.

    Because it is impossible to view the mass of information, including Alamoudi’s federal conviction, Gill’s own forms showing employment by or consulting for AMC, etc. and say that none of it matters, and that the only reason to oppose Gill would be that he is Moslem.

    The US ambassador to the UN is a Moslem. No one is opposing him. I think he is great. I think that Prof. Fouad Ajami is great. There is a Moslem guy downstairs. He is great.

    But Faisal Gill is not great. Quite the opposite. Anyone who tells you that opposition to Faisal Gill is opposition to all Moslems is cheating you.

    It is clear that some of the more enthusiastic Gill supporters, including some young person with a limited vocabulary who blogs under the name Tom, intend to cheat the public.

    They will fail. Gill will fail. Gill can get out of the race now, or we can all have some fun playing with Gill like a cat with a trapped mouse and wait for Gill to get out of the race later.

    Cuccinelli and Bolling can review the road they are on now, or they can review it later after they get the same treatment that Moran got when I and others attacked Moran over Moran’s Alamoudi ties.

    Moran is an incumbent congressman on a powerful committee. He was more than savvy enough to survive the damage he suffered because of his assocation with Alamoudi.

    Gill is a nebbish. A nobody. A punk. The campaign he managed for Steve Chapman was so incompetent that Chapman didn’t even file to run in time and had to drop out.

    Gill will not be the HOD-51 delegate in 2007, but if some people want to rail against the world that rejects Gill then go ahead.

  3. James Young said on 18 Jan 2007 at 9:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan,
    Who, precisely, “insist[s] that if you oppose Gill then you oppose all Moslems”?
    If there’s one thing worse than race-baiting, it’s phony accusations of race-baiting.

  4. charles said on 18 Jan 2007 at 10:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM, you have misconstrued my argument. I’ve not said that the only reason to oppose Gill was opposition to Islam or Muslims. Nor have I said that if you oppose Gill, it must be because you hate muslims.

    What I have said is that the guilt-by-association charges, and the rehashing of alleged “inproprieties” which were investigated and dismissed, and attacking Gill for consulting with a major american muslim organization which at the time was an accepted member of the community, are beneath republicans.

    Some of the attacks have had an strong anti-muslim ring to them, although I realise that the terrorists were muslim, so any attack about ‘association with terrorist organizations’ tends to be an attack about associating with muslim organizations.

    I suppose it’s not the fault of the complainers that all the terrorists were muslims, and therefore belonged to muslim organizations. But just as you couldn’t fault every Catholic or even every Catholic priest for the fact that some Catholic Priests were gay molesters, or that the church covered up for them, so you can’t fault every person who worked for a muslim organization simply because terrorists, who were muslims, also belonged to muslim organizations.

    I’m tired of all this, so I’ve overly abbreviated, I know the argument is that the organizations themselves are terrorist organizations, that people just “should have known”, and I’ve already made my arguments and I’m not going to bother any more.

  5. charles said on 18 Jan 2007 at 11:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, and of course, JM really is on the line of attacking muslims.

    The post Greg so happily links to labels Faisal Gill a “snot-nosed jihadist punks who need to be exposed. They are no better than the Islamist hoodlums torching cars in Paris.”

    Faisal is most certainly not a “jihadist punk”. The most that could be said for him is that he is a muslim, connected with other muslims and consulting for muslim organizations, some of which have come under fire for their activities.

    But of course, some people who label muslims “Jihadist punks” are not really anti-muslim, just anti the person they are labelling. So that’s not really fair I guess — although it’s hard to imagine a non-muslim being called a “jihadist punk”, or some of the other scurrilous terms JM uses.

    Anyway, if Greg wants to associate himself with this kind of baseless wordplay simply to get back at Steve Chapman, it’s his blog.

    I hope JM and his buddies have fun Saturday. Although i’m thinking they might not have much fun at all.

  6. charles said on 18 Jan 2007 at 11:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    BTW, Greg, do you really want to be seen as supporting a “whispering campaign” against Bill Bolling and Cuccinelli?

    I’d have to say that, as things go, that may actually be something I’d consider as a reason to remove someone from the republican committee.

    It’s one thing to attack someone for their positions. It’s even another thing to simply attack people because you don’t like who they associate with.

    But supporting a nefarious, baseless “whispering campaign” against people in your own party certainly could be seen as going way beyond the “rational disagreements” that are expected on a party committee.

  7. Batson D. Belfrey said on 18 Jan 2007 at 11:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “But supporting a nefarious, baseless “whispering campaign” against people in your own party certainly could be seen as going way beyond the “rational disagreements” that are expected on a party committee”

    If Gill were the GOP nominee, perhaps you might have a case. However, since he is just a declared candidate for the nomination, too bad. As far as criticizing or as you say it “attacking” a member of your own party, well a big group of people will also have to be removed for years of attacking Sean Canaughton. Also, you might want to break out a copy of the GOP party plan, and see just how hard it is to remove someone. Plus, since when did the GOP decide to crush all dissent? Oh, that’s right, when the Big K took over…after years of pounding on Sean. Sounds like Sharia law to me. You can call Greg an infidel. I call him a hero.

    PS.

    You are annoying Charles. Your posts are too long-winded and verbose. You may have a required minimum word-count for your column in the PN/MJM, but on a blog brevity leads to clarity. They should make prisoners in Gitmo read your posts…worse than waterboarding, IMHO.

  8. James Young said on 19 Jan 2007 at 12:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Uh, “Batson,” you seem to forget that it was Chairman Sean who attempted to stifle all dissent, and had his sycophants attacking anyone who dared to raise a question about his tax-and-spend ways, probably because he did it with such enthusiasm. It was Connaughton’s operatives who, in 2004, tried to pass amendments to the County GOP’s Party Plan which would have removed/disciplined those who did so, seeking to silence or bar conservative critics of the then-Lieutenant Governor wannabe’s tax-and-spend record in the County, to limit debate, and to insure only four meetings per year. Connaughton tried to emasculate and lobotomize the local GOP. As another blogger observed in another context (an observation with obvious limitations and qualifications), he was much like the cuckolded husband, deeply resentful of those who reminded others of how real men/Conservatives looks and acts. Even assuming arguendo the truth of your accusation, Kopko has managed to achieve through leadership what Connaughton tried to institutionalize through self-serving rules changes.

  9. Mitch Cumstein said on 19 Jan 2007 at 5:43 am:
    Flag comment

    “Connaughton tried to emasculate and lobotomize the local GOP … Kopko has managed to achieve through leadership what Connaughton tried to institutionalize through self-serving rules changes.”

    Not exactly, but close. Kopko has managed to “emasculate and lobotomize the local GOP.”

  10. Batson D. Belfrey said on 19 Jan 2007 at 7:54 am:
    Flag comment

    “Kopko has managed to achieve through leadership what Connaughton tried to institutionalize through self-serving rules changes.”

    Losing the US Sentate for George Allen is leadership? Having so many long time Republicans leave the PWCGOP is leadeeship? Making an ass out of himself with very public outbursts that make the local papers and piss off Congressmen is leadership?

    Thanks for setting us all straight James.

  11. Jonathan Mark said on 19 Jan 2007 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"it’s hard to imagine a non-muslim being called a “jihadist punk”,
    or some of the other scurrilous terms JM uses.”"”

    Grover Norquist is a jihadist punk.

    “”"BTW, Greg, do you really want to be seen as supporting a
    “whispering campaign” against Bill Bolling and Cuccinelli?”"”

    Freedom of speech includes freedom of whisper, freedom of shout and freedom of extemporaneous debate. It is up to the speaker to decide his chosen form of speech. When whispering is the most effective form of speech to oppose Gill and his allies I will whisper, and when shouting is most appropriate I will shout.

    Read your US Constitution. It contains no volume specifications on the speech being practiced.

    “”"I’d have to say that, as things go, that may actually be something I’d consider as a reason to remove someone from the republican committee.”"”

    You remove people from the Republican Committee for whispering? It must have very few members, then.

    “”"It’s one thing to attack someone for their positions. It’s even another thing to simply attack people because you don’t like who they associate with.”"”

    Yes, it is so awful when people attack Dem candidates for associating with Al Sharpton and Farrakhan. That is so unfair. Republicans would never, ever do that. It is so unfair to judge political candidates by who they associate with.

    “”"But supporting a nefarious, baseless “whispering campaign” against people in your own party certainly could be seen as going way beyond the “rational disagreements” that are expected on a party committee.”"”

    Great! We are agreed! We will whisper our rational disagreements when whispering is most effective, and shout our rational disagreements when shouting is most effective.

    However, I accept no restrictions whatever on my freedom of speech, which includes both my freedom to whisper and freedom to shout. Once the Sharia law people like Asim Ghafoor start restricting our American rights of freedom of speech then there will be no end to it. We can blaspheme Mohammad or criticize Gill in either a whisper or a scream as we choose, and Asim Ghafoor and Faisal Gill cannot legally prevent it.

  12. James Young said on 19 Jan 2007 at 1:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Mitch,” your editing skills are as self-serving and courageous as your pseudonymous Internet presence.

    Of course, you edited out the operative phrase (”assuming arguendo the truth of your accusation,” i.e., “since when did the GOP decide to crush all dissent? Oh, that’s right, when the Big K took over”) to change entirely the meaning.

    And BTW, “Batson,” who are the “many long time Republicans leave the PWCGOP is leadeeship,” and what difference does it make? Leadership changes over time. I was in it for a long time, but I doubt very seriously that you were bemoaning the fact that “many long time Republicans left the PWC GOP’s leadership” when Brian Murphy took over and I — among others — was no longer in it. And laying George Allen’s loss at Tom Kopko’s feat defies reason, or a clear-headed recognition of Allen’s self-inflicted wounds. I won’t say he hasn’t made some mistakes, but neither will I engage in or endorse the kind of demonization that seems to be the stock in trade of Chairman Sean’s sycophants, among others.

    And Jonathan, just because the First Amendment may protect the right of Greg and you to smear Faisal with innuendo, as quietly or as loudly as you like, doesn’t mean that your smears are meritorious, or that they are above criticism. The First Amendment that protects your right to do so also protects the right of Charles to denounce them as cheap, asinine, meritless smears. It has little to do with the merits of the argument, however, except as the last refuge of a scoundrel. In this context, it’s pretty much akin to Charles yelling “I’ve lost 20 lbs. already this year!” Great news. Wonderful, even. But irrelevant to the issues at hand.

  13. CONVA said on 23 Jan 2007 at 6:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Some thoughts on the big “K”s leadership and management expertise. At one time he wanted to erect a flag pole in front of the PWCRP headquarters with no plan for whom would raise and lower the flag at the appropriate times. As the Coles District Chairman which was assigned one day at the County Fair, he failed to get folks to man the booth. His glitzy presentations at monthly meetings are cute but no substance. The committee has yet to see copies of the amended budget that accomodated the so-called shack attack, nor copies of the monthly report. On the state election board’s web site you will find a name of a person that has authorized payments that has no position in the financial arena. The committee has yet to receive a total breakdown of the ill fated “GALA” last summer. Great leadership…stay tuned.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1500