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

Antisemites For Faisal Gill

By Greg L | 7 February 2007 | 51st HOD District | 22 Comments

An interesting discussion seems to be developing in one of the threads on Faisal Gill’s qualifications (or lack thereof) for elected office, where one of Faisal Gill’s supporters, alternatively identifying himself as Johnny Bashir, mohammed, or pwcman, is now calling out detractors as “racist jews”. The Faisal Gill campaign is just hurtling down the toilet at breakneck speed.

About the absolute dumbest move Faisal Gill could make would be to have his supporters start trying to defend him with jewbaiting, racist comments like this, while Faisal Gill faces questions regarding his connections to folks who call for the imposition of Sharia law in America and those who have identified themselves as supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now Faisal Gill has created another campaign vulnerability, and brought the charges of racism levelled against some of his detractors full circle, now pointing back at his own supporters.

I thought I’d never see a campaign more error-prone than Steve Chapman’s. I was wrong.



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.

22 Comments

  1. Batson D. Belfrey said on 7 Feb 2007 at 2:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not to mention functionally illiterate. I mean, pwcman, Johnny Bashir, or who ever he is, must have learned his english watching old Lone Ranger episodes. The guy must talk like Tonto, because he sure writes like him…

    Hmm…writes in broken english, problems with grammer? I know who this guy is. He’s the one who put out Chapman’s push card and the flyer announcing his fund raiser. Who could forget “Sponcer”.

  2. James Young said on 7 Feb 2007 at 4:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    I suppose that you COULD make a case that there is clearly bias at work here. Of course, given the tone of this blog with regard to Faisal, it is not “anti-Semitism” which is the most likely candidate.

  3. Jonathan Mark said on 7 Feb 2007 at 5:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    From the beginning, Gill’s supporters have accused his critics of being racist. The mantra is that if you ask too many questions about Gill then you are prejudiced against all Moslems.

    However, Salon Magazine mentioned government officials asking the same questions about Gill’s employment by Alamoudi two years ago that we are still trying to get Gill to answer.

    “”"Gill previously worked in an organization tied to both Alamoudi and Norquist. One anonymous official says, “There’s an overall denial in the administration that the agenda being pushed by Norquist might be a problem. It’s so absurd that a Grover Norquist person could even be close to something like this. That’s really what’s so insidious.” Another official complains, “Who is Abdurahman Alamoudi? We really don’t know. So how can we say there is not a problem with his former aide?” [Salon, 6/22/2004] “”"

    Gill has yet to describe what he did for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, other than to call himself a director of government relations or a consultant. There is a black hole in Gill’s resume which no one is supposed to ask about.

    We don’t even know when Gill worked for Alamoudi. The government employment form from late 2001 that Gill released only asked about Gill’s employment during the previous year.

    Gill has described Alamoudi as being on the board of directors of the AMC. Alamoudi left that position in 2000. So that suggests that Gill had worked for Alamoudi’s AMC prior to late 2000.

    But we don’t know, because Gill won’t say. Maybe he can get elected without telling what he did and did not do for the convicted terrorist Alamoudi.

    But if enough of us ask enough questions it won’t happen. Brickbats like “racist Jew” don’t affect me and don’t affect other Gill critics either. First defeat Gill, then worry about whether some of Gill’s supporters are anti-Christian or anti-Semitic racists.

  4. Jonathan Mark said on 7 Feb 2007 at 5:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young repeatedly denied that Gill supporters accuse Gill critics of being prejudiced against Moslems. Now Young flips and makes that very accusation himself:

    “”"”I suppose that you COULD make a case that there is clearly bias at work here. Of course, given the tone of this blog with regard to Faisal, it is not “anti-Semitism” which is the most likely candidate.”"”"

    Rev. Al Sharpton, meet your colleague and fellow race-pimp James Young!

  5. James Young said on 7 Feb 2007 at 6:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, your powers of logic are positively absurd. Witness your suggestion that asking questions already answered to the satisfaction of government investigators is somehow a legitimate basis for criticism.

    First, no one here accused anyone of “being racist.” What I quite carefully said was that “I suppose that you COULD make a case that there is clearly bias at work here.”

    Second, so far as I am aware, only a single person — Charles Reichley — actually leveled such an accusation. However, it is my recollection that he backed off of that accusation quite promptly.

    Third, the notion that “some of Gill’s supporters are anti-Christian or anti-Semitic racists” is utter surmise, lacking rational basis. The question is whether Gill is an “anti-Christian or anti-Semitic racists.” Given that he supports Israel, has worn the uniform of this country — like his brother — and has educated three of his four children in Catholic schools, one has to be utterly irrational to suggest that he is. But then, I repeat myself.

    Fourth, I’m pretty sure what is at work here is not racism, but rather, the unfortunate confluence between the tax advocate wing of the GOP (with the aid and comfort of lapsed Dems such as yourself), the Harry Parrish cult of personality, possessed of unremitting hostility towards anyone who had anything to do with Steve Chapman’s nearly-successful primary challenge, and Greg’s resentment over the fact that Faisal’s law firm represents Chapman in a lawsuit to hold Greg responsible for his irresponsible attacks on Chapman.

    I don’t know you well enough to know whether you are a racist, Jonathan. As I said, though, in light of your repetition of charges dismissed by government investigators and guilt-by-association tactics, one could make that case.

    On the other hand, perhaps your are simply cravenly appealing to anti-Muslim sentiment for political motives.

  6. Greg L said on 7 Feb 2007 at 8:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    James,

    I don’t think that the government’s answers regarding Faisal Gill have been any more satisfying that the answers it gave in regards to the rationale given for the cruise missile attack on the Sudanese aspirin factory. It’s telling that the senate committee charged with investigating the financing of terrorism was as unconvinced about this case as Jonathan and I are. It became a political issue, and to suspect that the resolution proffered by the government might be entirely political seems pretty reasonable to me.

    In regards to my own motivation here, in the process of preparing a defense in my trial I came across a lot of disturbing information regarding a principal in the law firm representing the plaintiff. I was troubled by it, but it was generally irrelevant. When Faisal chose to run, that information became very relevant, and I’ve presented it. I honestly would have acted the same regardless of my personal circumstances. Faisal just isn’t significant enough in my life to really care about him beyond the political contests he chooses to engage in.

    I go after poor candidates on both sides of the aisle who run in the county or the city. I go after public officials who I think are doing a terrible job. I take folks like Rishell, Feder, Chapman and now Gill to task because they’re just horrible candidates for office. I don’t need to have a personal grudge to come to the conclusion that they don’t deserve a position of public trust. They earn that on their own.

  7. charles said on 7 Feb 2007 at 10:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’d say nice try, Greg, except it isn’t, it’s pathetic, even for you, or maybe not, I have to remind myself the type of blog you run.

    Some anonymous commenter to a blog called another one of your commenters that name, because he called Gill supporters “jihadists”. In other words, a Gill detractor STARTED with the namecalling (well actually YOU started with the namecalling but JM is right there with you), and one of the commenters made a single comment back. There’s no “discussion” going on, the guy said something, and JM came back with another retort.

    If Lucas’s supporters are just going to call her opponent a terrorist-loving muslim, and his supporters jihadists, she’ll have a real problem winning an election. Oh no, wait, it’s not her fault that some pathetic blog posters happen to like her.

  8. charles said on 7 Feb 2007 at 10:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    And Greg, James probably won’t say this but I will. I think the suit is silly, and wish it would stop.

    But I am certain that researching the LAWYER for your opponent in the case is NOT the way to win a lawsuit. You walk into court and make a single negative comment about the opposition’s LAWYER, and you’ll likely be wishing you had followed BVBL’s lead.

    I’m not a lawyer, but it doesn’t take a brain to know that attacking the opponent’s lawyer isn’t going to win you any points in a court of law.

  9. James Young said on 7 Feb 2007 at 10:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, Greg, I suppose you can try to use “a lot of disturbing information regarding a principal in the law firm representing the plaintiff” if you want, but I would question the judgment of an attorney who would allow you to try to do so, since such behavior — attacking the representative of your litigation opponent — strikes me as nearly paradigm sanctionable conduct. I see it a lot in my practice, from union lawyers, and I invariably win the cases in which such tactics are tried. Indeed, about every two years, I file a suit and get a letter from a union lawyer threatening what in Federal practice are known as “Rule 11 sanctions.” The client of every lawyer who has made such a threat has ended up writing a rather large check to the National Right to Work Foundation for attorneys’ fees and costs, recoverable by successful plaintiffs (i.e., my clients) in civil rights lawsuits.

    As for whether Faisal is a “horrible candidate,” some could doubtless conclude that he is. You’d have a lot more credibility on the issue, of course, if his law firm weren’t representing your litigation opponent, and if you didn’t reflexively attack anyone who had anything to do with Steve Chapman and his candidacies.

    The question raised by your retort is, of course, “What information WOULD satisfy you?” Or, for that matter, a Senate committee with (then) a minority which desperately grasped at any straw to embarrass President Bush and his administration. The sad conclusion from the tenor of the comments you make and tolerate is “Nothing,” since you invariably trash anyone who had anything to do with Chapman’s campaign, as though — even if some of your criticisms of Chapman had merit, which some may — they were responsible for his shortcomings as a candidate, or that it is somehow inappropriate to overlook a candidate’s minor shortcomings in pursuit of the greater good. ‘Course, when you find a perfect candidate, you tell someone. Personally, I’d rather have such a man as my Savior than as an elected official, and I suspect you’ll never find one who runs for public office.

    And, like Jackson Miller, I would suggest that Julie Lucas — whom I like — stay away from “supporters” like these. Their stock in trade is guilt-by-association and innuendo, and they do little to advance her cause. If anything — given the borderline bigotry which some could believe underlies their behavior — they hurt her, and will activate individuals who might otherwise not become involved on behalf of Faisal Gill, or for Julie’s Democrat opponent, if she is the nominee.

    As for your comment about the suit, Charles, one could make that case, too. I’ve said all along that Chapman’s legal burden is considerable. But I keep coming back to this: if the lawsuit were frivolous, or meritless, any attorney worth a tinker’s dam would have gotten it dismissed months ago. I suspect that, if Chapman wins, you’ll regret your description of the suit as “silly.”

  10. Jonathan Mark said on 7 Feb 2007 at 11:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    The record is clear. James Young is a race pimp like Al Sharpton is a race pimp. They accuse you of racism if you criticize Faisal Gill or Tawana Brawley.

    # James Young said on 7 Feb 2007 at 6:58 pm:

    “”"Witness your suggestion that asking questions already answered to the satisfaction of government investigators is somehow a legitimate basis for criticism.”"”

    I have never alleged that Gill was unfit to receive a security clearance. Nor have I alleged that Gill committed a crime.

    Gill in 2001 and perhaps at other times worked as the chief lobbyist for a notorious terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is serving a 23 year federal prison sentence for money laundering. I would like to know what months and years Gill worked for Alamoudi or the Alamoudi-founded, Alamoudi-financed and Alamoudi-controlled American Muslim Council. I would like to know what Alamoudi’s interaction, direct or indirect, was with Gill. What actions did Gill perform on behalf of Alamoudi?

    The above are legitimate questions to ask. If government investigators already asked them then so what? I want to know the answers. It is a matter of complete indifference to me if government investigators know the answers.

    “”"First, no one here accused anyone of “being racist.” What I quite carefully said was that “I suppose that you COULD make a case that there is clearly bias at work here.””"”

    What I quite carefully say is that “I suppose that you COULD make a case that James Young is clearly a customer of homosexual prostitutes.” According to your logic, no one here has accused James Young of being a customer of homosexual prostitutes.

    “”"Third, the notion that “some of Gill’s supporters are anti-Christian or anti-Semitic racists” is utter surmise, lacking rational basis.”"”

    Given that one of them, PWCMan/Johnny Bashir called me a “racist Jew” and earlier alleged that Christians are caught between Jews and Moslems I consider my statement to be accurate. BVBL agrees with me on this one.

    “”"The question is whether Gill is an “anti-Christian or anti-Semitic racists.””"”

    That is not the question. It is not even intelligible.

    “”"Given that he supports Israel,”"”"

    Irrelevant to the question of why he worked for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council and what he did there.

    “”"”has worn the uniform of this country — like his brother”"”

    So did Al Gore. So did James Webb. So did John Kerry. So did Jimmy Carter. Did you vote for them? Why not? Does their service in the armed forces mean that they were fit for office?

    “”" — and has educated three of his four children in Catholic schools,”"”"

    Irrelevant to the question of what Gill did for Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    “”"one has to be utterly irrational to suggest that he is.”"”

    Then don’t suggest it. First you suggest it and then you defend him against the accusation you made. I said some of his supporters are anti-Christian or anti-Semitic racists. I didn’t say Gill himself was.

    “”"Fourth, I’m pretty sure what is at work here is not racism,”"”

    Contradicts your above suggestion that “there is clearly bias at work here.” By the way, what was the word “clearly” doing in your statement, if you did not believe your statement to be true?

    “”"”(with the aid and comfort of lapsed Dems such as yourself),”"”

    I am glad I am a lapsed Dem, and will remain one until the era of the Moran brothers in the DPVA ends. That may be awhile.

    “”"unremitting hostility towards anyone who had anything to do with Steve Chapman’s nearly-successful primary challenge,”"”

    Did someone drop you on your head? There was no primary Chapman challenge. The high-school graduate Chapman forgot to file.

    “”"Greg’s resentment over the fact that Faisal’s law firm represents Chapman in a lawsuit to hold Greg responsible for his irresponsible attacks on Chapman.”"”

    Greg seems to be sincerely opposed to Gill based upon Gill’s work for Alamoudi. Why is that so unbelievable to you? Do you think that the whole world accepts what you accept?

    “”"I don’t know you well enough to know whether you are a racist, Jonathan. As I said, though, in light of your repetition of charges dismissed by government investigators”"”

    Government investigators never investigated whether Gill was fit for office. They investigated whether Gill was a security risk and whether he broke the law when filling out government forms. I do not assert that Gill is a security risk or that he broke the law. I do not repeat those charges at all. I assert he is unfit for the House of Delegates due to his lobbying work for the terrorist Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.

    “”"and guilt-by-association tactics,”"”"

    You meant, “guilt-by-employment tactics” or “guilt-by-lobbying tactics.”

    “”"one could make that case.”"”

    First you accuse Gill critics of being racists. Then you deny accusing Gill critics of being racists. Then you accuse me of being a racist.

    “”"On the other hand, perhaps your are simply cravenly appealing to anti-Muslim sentiment for political motives.”"”

    A person who did that would be a racist, so you are again accusing me of being a racist.

  11. Greg L said on 7 Feb 2007 at 11:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually James, I do support some of the folks who have been associated with Chapman in the past. I’ve supported and continue to support Corey Stewart and Bob Fitzsimmonds, to name a few, and have a good relationship with Denny Daugherty. In fact, the only person associated with Chapman whom I’ve been criticizing has been Gill, which should indicate that I’m judging people by their own merits and not on what clique they happen to have membership in. If I was dead-set against any of Steve Chapman’s associates, I’d be throwing rocks at a whole lot more people than I have. Fact is, they get judged on their own merits, and some of these folks are fine candidates and officials who I think deserve our support.

    As for the legal stuff, I’ve never been advised on how to conduct this blog, or sought such advice with the exception of trademark issues. I do my own research for my own reasons that are not necessarily connected to my defense, although if I find something material I pass it on to my attorney. I think it’s dubious to suggest my attorney is doing anything improper, and am surprised at such a suggestion. You’re better than that.

    As far as dismissal, I’ve been of the opinion that a hearing on this might be a good idea for many reasons. I’ve not asked my attorney to seek a dismissal. I want this litigated, or the plaintiff can choose to drop it if the embarrassment of this is too great. As it is, it seems to endlessly linger which is thoroughly frustrating, but I alone cannot determine the speed at which it progresses. In the end, I believe more good will be accomplished by taking this inane suit all the way to trial.

    As to what would satisfy me, I think something that detailed all the potential problems and convincingly explained how they were not an issue would be sufficient. So far we’ve gotten the thinnest statements possible on this, the senate finance committee’s questions don’t seem to have been answered, and the details of Gill’s employment of the AMC and Islamic Institute haven’t been disclosed. Basic questions about the timing and duration of his work, his specific duties, and whom in these organizations he was working with haven’t been disclosed, or have been disclosed inconsistently over time. Since no one seems willing to talk about what actually happened, it really looks to me like there’s an intent to hide the truth.

    Unless Gill clears this up, these valid questions will continue to be asked. I’m surprised to some degree that you’re not more curious about all of these unknowns, and are satisfied with the vague statements which have been given thus far. With Dion, they weren’t sufficient, and with Gill they shouldn’t be either.

  12. Jonathan Mark said on 7 Feb 2007 at 11:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    # James Young said on 7 Feb 2007 at 10:38 pm:

    “”"Well, Greg, I suppose you can try to use “a lot of disturbing information regarding a principal in the law firm representing the plaintiff” if you want,”"”"

    Greg emphatically said he would not use it in his lawsuit defense, so why is James Young now suggesting that Greg do so?

    “”"but I would question the judgment of an attorney who would allow you to try to do so”"”

    I am beginning to see a pattern here. James Young makes an outlandish suggestion and then refutes his own outlandish suggestion. To a careless reader it seems as if Young is refuting his opponent, when in fact Young is refuting himself. Young’s whole rhetorical style is onanistic.

    “”"As for whether Faisal is a “horrible candidate,” some could doubtless conclude that he is.”"”

    Based on his employment as a lobbyist by Alamoudi’s AMC many will doubtless conclude that he is. That will render Gill unelectable. Many Republicans who vote against Gill in the primary won’t vote for Gill in the general if he wins.

    “”"You’d have a lot more credibility on the issue, of course, if his law firm weren’t representing your litigation opponent, and if you didn’t reflexively attack anyone who had anything to do with Steve Chapman and his candidacies.”"”

    Notice that James Young starts out opposing attacking-the-messenger arguments, but now resorts to one himself.

    “”"”you invariably trash anyone who had anything to do with Chapman’s campaign, as though — even if some of your criticisms of Chapman had merit, which some may”"”

    At this point it is clear that James Young is obsessed with Chapman. Young is flinging the mud he is covered with when he imputes his own Chapman obsession to Greg.

    “”"I would suggest that Julie Lucas — whom I like — stay away from “supporters” like these.”"”

    I would suggest that she stay away from me. I am negative. She should smile and run a positive campaign.

    In order to avoid charges of collusion I will not speak to her or to anyone in her campaign.

    “”"”Their stock in trade is guilt-by-association”"”

    WRONG! My stock-in-trade is “guilt-by-employment” and “guilt-by-lobbying.”

    “”"and innuendo,”"”"

    If Gill would tell us what he did for Alamoudi’s AMC then our questions would be answered. The innuendo is the result of the refusal of Gill to answer reasonable questions about his activities as a lobbyist prior to his current run for office.

    “”"”and they do little to advance her cause.”"”"

    We will see. I don’t know whether blogs played a role in the cancellation of Faisal’s campaign kickoff, which was to have included Bill Bolling and Cooch.

    “”"”If anything — given the borderline bigotry which some could believe underlies their behavior”"”"

    Again, the race pimp James “Al Sharpton” Young accuses those who criticize Faisal Gill/Tawana Brawley of racism.

    “”" — they hurt her,”"”

    As long as I have no contact with her campaign it would be hard for me to harm her. I am a mere blogger. Anyone can post on BVBL.

    “”"and will activate individuals who might otherwise not become involved on behalf of Faisal Gill,”"”

    Who? So far Bill Bolling and Cooch have been deactivated. Who has been activated?

    “”" or for Julie’s Democrat opponent, if she is the nominee.”"”

    If you are concerned about to activating people for the HOD-51 Democratic nominee then don’t nominate Faisal Gill!

  13. Batson D. Belfrey said on 8 Feb 2007 at 4:52 am:
    Flag comment

    “I’d say nice try, Greg, except it isn’t, it’s pathetic, even for you, or maybe not, I have to remind myself the type of blog you run.”

    As opposed to the type of blog YOU run…boring, with no readers? If this blog is so bad, why do you spend so much time on it? I mean, you must hold the record for comment length. I know the MJM pays you by the word, but do you have to do it here?

  14. Loudoun Insider said on 8 Feb 2007 at 7:21 am:
    Flag comment

    This entire debate has been extremely entertaining! From my perspective, Greg and Jonathan have completely and thoroughly dissected JY’s arguments - so much for that great legal authority (cue the attack on this “cowardly anonymous blogger”). And of course we all know that every government investigation of politically connected government employees is totally above board (cue the sarcasm alert if it hasn’t been detected yet).

  15. James Young said on 8 Feb 2007 at 10:59 am:
    Flag comment

    I realize Greg will probably edit this, but since I think “race pimp” is similarly to the term I’m about to use, turnabout is fair play:

    Whether you are an anti-Muslim racist and bigot is, as I’ve repeatedly said, an open question. However, once again, you offer tried-and-true guilt-by-association tactics and misrepresentation which are your stock-in-trade, and have an audience among the cowardly crowd here afraid to put their names on their smears. At least you’re not a coward. Insane, but not a coward. And anyone who believes that you — as a Democrat — care whether a Conservative Republican like Faisal is electable is a fool.

    Now that I’ve got that out of my system, I’ll turn to Greg’s comments.

    As for what would satisfy you, Greg, you suggest an insuperable burden, and I, for one, would tell you to “Go to Hell” if you demanded similar information about my employment simply because I was a candidate for public office, particularly since I was already cleared by Federal investigators, held positions of trust in the Administration, and wore my country’s uniform. These continued “charges” are despicable.

    As to the litigation against him, Greg says “that a hearing on this might be a good idea for many reasons,” that he has “not asked [his] attorney to seek a dismissal,” that he “want[s] this litigated,” and that it “endlessly linger[s] which is thoroughly frustrating.” He also says that “the plaintiff can choose to drop it if the embarrassment of this is too great.”

    Nice try, Greg, but if you really think that’s going to sell, then you’re a fool. No one would subject himself to the expense of the defense of litigation and the discovery process — you’re still paying your lawyer, right? — if they could have a case kicked by a dismissal early on in the litigation. Unless you’re independently wealthy and have as your primary goal embarrassing Chapman (interesting tactic, that: provoking him into suing you), your claim is disingenuous. As for your frustration over the case “endlessly linger[ing],” perhaps if you answered Chapman’s discovery requests, the case could move forward.

    Greg also notes that “I do support some of the folks who have been associated with Chapman in the past. I’ve supported and continue to support Corey Stewart and Bob Fitzsimmonds, to name a few, and have a good relationship with Denny Daugherty.”

    Fair enough. But how are these people distinct from Faisal? Aside from the fact that they’ve never received presidential appointments, or been cleared of charges by Federal investigators? Well, Corey and Bob have both won GOP nominations. All three are white (tragically white, in fact) Christians. Bob isn’t an attorney, and neither Corey nor Denny has ever been a member of a law firm representing someone suing Greg. Oh, yes, and they’ve never been associated with someone later convicted on terrorism-related (or terrorism) charges, an association which Federal investigators found to be innocent. I suppose — no, I know — I could bring up embarrassing personal associations about at least one of these people, but to then make the logical leap that the individual in question was complicit in such activities would be utter insanity, just as it is insane to accuse me of complicity in the violent crimes committed by someone with whom I used to smoke cigars, or someone I passed by as a child on my way to elementary school.

    As I demonstrated on another comment thread, your are clearly using guilt-by-association as an outlet for your animosity. I am still presuming, Greg, that you are not an anti-Muslim racist and bigot. But you’ve yet to cite a single policy of Faisal’s with which you take exception.

    Perhaps when you start talking policy, your motives won’t be questioned. Until then, turnabout is fair play.

    [Ed Note: comment is edited]

  16. Greg L said on 8 Feb 2007 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    James, although you might think it wiser to just punt this legal issue down the field for someone else to be saddled with it, I don’t. lawsuit abuse happens precisely because folks don’t generally stand up to it and prefer to duck at any opportunity to leave someone else as the target. I do a lot of things where I accept risks that I might otherwise avoid because I think it’s the right thing to do. I personally intervene to protect crime victims and have done so on several occasions, despite the fact I could simply drive past like the other sheep and avoid the risk. I choose to stand up and defend what I think is right. This isn’t a whole lot different in my mind.

    It’s getting awfully tiresome to have my motivations endlessly confused with racism. If that’s the best defense your can muster in support of Faisal Gill, he is indeed as weak a candidate as I have demonstrated.

  17. Jonathan Mark said on 8 Feb 2007 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Reposted due to formatting problem with previous post. If Greg can delete the last post I would appreciate it.

    “”"James Young said on 8 Feb 2007 at 10:59 am:
    I realize Greg will probably edit this, but since I think “race pimp” is similarly to the term I’m about to use, turnabout is fair play:”"”

    Young accused me of racism before I responded by calling him a “race pimp.” Turnabout is indeed fair play, and the turnabout is mine.

    “”"”Whether you are an anti-Muslim racist and bigot is, as I’ve repeatedly said, an open question.”"”

    Fine. In that case, whether James Young is a customer of homosexual prostitutes is an open question. Race pimp Young has not accused me of anything, and I have not accused him. We merely discuss open questions without accusing, a fine point that is probably lost on the average reader.

    “”"However, once again, you offer tried-and-true guilt-by-association tactics”"”

    As I repeatedly point out, I offer tried-and-true guilt-by-employment and guilt-by-lobbying tactics similar to those used with great effect, and properly so, against Harris Miller in last year’s Dem Senate primary.

    “”"Anyone who believes that you — as a Democrat — care whether a Conservative Republican like Faisal is electable is a fool.”"”

    First of all, I am no longer a Dem, having twice had my application for membership in the Lee District Democratic Committee rejected. The LDDC does not agree with you that I am a Dem.

    Second of all, I care very much whether Faisal Gill is electable, and I am glad that he is not. He could win the Republican nomination if Lucas messes up. He cannot beat a credible Dem candidate in November. Republicans who want to nominate Gill are throwing the seat away.

    “”"”Nice try, Greg, but if you really think that’s going to sell, then you’re a fool. No one would subject himself to the expense of the defense of litigation and the discovery process — you’re still paying your lawyer, right? — if they could have a case kicked by a dismissal early on in the litigation.”"”"

    If Gill sues me I will not file for dismissal either. I will want to go to trial. I will spend what I need to.

    “”"Aside from the fact that they’ve never received presidential appointments, or been cleared of charges by Federal investigators?”"”

    Gill has not been cleared of charges that he was the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council. In fact, no one seriously disputes that. It is the one thing that we seem to agree on.

    “”"All three are white (tragically white, in fact) Christians.”"”

    The race pimp James Young is starting in again, as we are supposed to feel sorry for the persecuted Faisal. There are plenty of white people in jihadist organizations, including the now-imprisoned Ismail Royer of CAIR. We are against Gill because of what he did for Alamoudi’s AMC. If Gill looked more like Royer we would be against Gill as much as we are now. Not more and not less.

    “”"”Oh, yes, and they’ve never been associated with someone later convicted on terrorism-related (or terrorism) charges, an association which Federal investigators found to be innocent.”"”

    James Young and I agree that there is not evidence that Faisal Gill committed a serious crime beyond possibly filling out a government form incorrectly. What we disagree is whether “I am not in jail” excuses all culpable behavior. Race pimp Young seems to think that it does. To race pimp Young, our complaints about Gill’s role in the now-defunct jihadist group AMC are evidence of prejudice.

    Supporting violent jihad is not in and of itself a crime. But I would not elect such a person to the HOD-51, and neither would most voters. In order to determine what Gill was up to at the AMC and we need information about what he did there.

    “”"”but to then make the logical leap that the individual in question was complicit in such activities would be utter insanity,”"”"

    If it is utter insanity to accuse a lobbyist of supporting what he lobbied for then WHY did people attack Harris Miller last year for supporting H-1B visas, outsourcing and no-paper-trail Diebold voting machines? No one thought it insane then.

    Race pimp Young believes that it is insane to blame a lobbyist for what and who he lobbied for. I guess a lot of Abramoff associates will be relieved to find that out!

    “”"As I demonstrated on another comment thread, your are clearly using guilt-by-association as an outlet for your animosity. I am still presuming, Greg, that you are not an anti-Muslim racist and bigot. But you’ve yet to cite a single policy of Faisal’s with which you take exception.”"”

    Actually, Greg took issue with Gill’s meaningless statement about illegal immigration. Greg complained that if Gill is this wishy-washy now he will be even worse once he is elected.

    “”"Perhaps when you start talking policy, your motives won’t be questioned.”"”

    Except he already did, on illegal immigration.

    “”"Until then, turnabout is fair play.”"”

    Since Greg already did so, race pimp James Young should stop accusing Gill opponents of racism.

  18. pwcman said on 8 Feb 2007 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L(Looser), Johnny, mohammad and myself work in the same office. we are supporters of Faisal. we will support faisal all the way. By the way, boston B., I speak five languages. Please don’t critcize my grammer. I learned english in this country. Do you speak any languge other than english? I guess not.

    go Faisal

  19. Greg L said on 8 Feb 2007 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    And no, readers, I did not insert an error into the above post where the writer speaks of his considerable knowledge of grammar. What I am ‘looser than’ isn’t specified, but perhaps it’s a case of me not being so tightly wrapped around the candidacy of a rather unimpressive candidate for delegate.

  20. Jonathan Mark said on 8 Feb 2007 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Greg L(Looser), Johnny, mohammad and myself work in the same office.”"”

    Amazing coincidence, no? And all three display the same poor spelling and bad grammar.

    By the way, whenever Johnny, muhammad and pwcman “loose” their dictionaries they should get them replaced. It doesn’t do to “loose” such an essential resource for determining proper English usage.

  21. James Young said on 8 Feb 2007 at 1:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Apparently, Greg, some kinds of name-calling are acceptable.

    And Greg, “lawsuit abuse” is best prevented when frivolous suits are promptly dismissed. It is “lawsuit abuse” if you think his suit is frivolous, yet allow it to do to trial anyway. That is a waste of precious judicial resources, and your precious resources, as well.

    On the other hand, you might just be making excuses for as long as you can about a losing legal hand.

    And I am not confusing your motivations with racism. To the contrary, I am offering an alternative explanation. But if they are not racist, given your regard for the white individuals you identify who are not members of a law firm representing Steve Chapman, then they are clearly personal. That you allow a maroon like Mark — who is a Democrat, without regard to that Party’s wise decision to deny him a Party leadership post, though he seems well-qualified — unfettered commentary to smear a Republican candidate with flimsy, specious charges simply demonstrates that something else is at work here. I offer two plausible explanations, explanations more plausible than the smears that you are engaging in here.

  22. Greg L said on 8 Feb 2007 at 1:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    I try to walk a fine line between allowing hard commentary and reigning in what too often devolves into personal attacks between posters which only serves to lower the quality of the threads. It doesn’t escape my attention that this only seems to occurr when you’re involved in the discussion in some way.

    Once again you’ve managed to change the topic of discussion on a thread and make me waste a lot of my time babysitting. I’m aware that you’re not responsible for all of this, and at other times you’re contributed valuable and insightful commentary on a lot of what’s been posted.

    I am closing this thread.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2764