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

Unfit For Duty

By Greg L | 19 March 2007 | 51st HOD District | 24 Comments

This is the front cover of a mail piece sent out recently by the Faisal Gill campaign. If the main picture and the third inset aren’t posed campaign photos, I can’t imagine that the campaign would need the services of a professional photographer at all. These are pretty charming pictures, but as I’ve pointed out it is against Navy regulations for a candidate to use his uniform to promote his candidacy while serving as a member of the armed forces.

There’s an important reason why this is the case. Since the founding of our nation, our armed forces have been apolitical which has helped to cement the philosophy that the armed forces are subordinate to our elected government rather than a competing power within it, as is the case in several other countries where military dictatorships are common and the rule of law is often rather weak as a result. If we had candidates for office using their uniforms as a campaign prop, not only would the uniform be used in a manner inconsistent with it’s purpose, it would be for purposes having nothing at all to do with the purpose of defending our country. Precisely what would the purpose be of an official duty (implied by the wearing of the uniform) of campaigning for office by a commissioned officer of the armed forces? Nothing consistent with our laws or constitution, most certainly.

Because our military is strictly subordinate to governmental authority, having candidates for office engage in campaign activities while wearing their uniforms is improper, a policy which has been long been established in DoD Instruction 1334.1. Services have established additional guidance to help clarify this instruction and apply guidance regarding service-unique circumstances, such as NAVPERS 15665I. This guidance establishes that participating in a campaign activity while in uniform is specifically prohibited by this Navy regulation, as well as in the DoD policy. Taking campaign photos is clearly a political activity, as it’s sole purpose is to develop materials to promote a political campaign, making Faisal Gill’s actions a violation of regulation and policy.

We hold those who serve in the armed forces to a higher standard in many ways, and in addition to the service and not infrequent bravery these true American heroes display, they are worthy of our respect and honor because they meet that higher standard. Members of the armed forces are subject to prohibitions that the rest of us are not, such as criminal penalties for adultery, engaging in homosexual acts, being impaired by drugs or alcohol while on duty, or failing to report when ordered to do so. Just not showing up for work can result in incarceration. And no one should be more aware of this, or more careful about adhering to these restrictions, than a military attorney who as his duty requires enforces these regulations against other members of the armed forces.

What would a citizen surmise about a candidate’s likely respect for campaign finance or election laws when as an officer in the armed forces he willfully disobeys the military regulations that he is charged with enforcing on others? Would he think he is more or less likely to follow the law? I believe this speaks to a candidate’s character, and in this case rather than believing that Faisal Gill warrants high respect for his service, his behavior indicates disabling character flaws that make him unfit to hold elected office, and possibly of the privilege of wearing the uniform of an officer in the United States Navy.

Faisal Gill should withdraw.



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.

24 Comments

  1. long time resident said on 20 Mar 2007 at 5:55 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s been a long time since college Poli Sci, but doesn’t the Hatch Act also prohibit Federal employees from running for election if they are affiliated with a party (hence why they run as Independents)?

  2. Anonymous said on 20 Mar 2007 at 6:13 am:
    Flag comment

    He looks like he is right out of the cast of the Love Boat. Or the Village People.

  3. Annonny said on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:06 am:
    Flag comment

    He’s not part of the cast, he IS the love boat.

  4. Rharrison said on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    The exact reference is Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 2 Chapter 45 Section 772 of the U.S. Military Uniform Code.

    I think Long Time Resident is wrong about the Hatch Act, but only for an obscure reason. The Hatch Act prohibits Federal Employees from being a candidate in a partisan election. They can’t even be independent candidates in an election where candidates are identified by party.

    However, the Hatch Act exempts military personnel from the definition of “federal employee.” More information on the Hatch Act can be found here: ttp://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm.

    I think that Mr. Gill can run as an active duty military officer under the Hatch Act, but the Uniform Code may be a bigger problem.

  5. Batson D. Belfrey said on 20 Mar 2007 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “He looks like he is right out of the cast of the Love Boat.”

    Only if you consider a cross-over epsiode where Tatoo from Fantasy Island was on the Love Boat. He looks like Tatoo in Gopher’s wihites.

  6. Jonathan Mark said on 20 Mar 2007 at 5:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why is there no picture of Faisal with his former boss/client Abdurahman Alamoudi?

    Just because Faisal’s former boss/client at the American Muslim Council is serving a 23-year sentence in the pokey for terrorist money laundering is no reason for Faisal to pretend that the guy doesn’t exist.

    I feel that Faisal abandoning his boss/client in jail indicates a disturbing character flaw. Faisal was happy to take Alamoudi’s in-part Libyan funded money when Alamoudi was on the street.

    Faisal was happy to storm out of a White House meeting in protest against the exclusion of imprisoned terrorist Sami Al-Arian’s son when Alamoudi was out on the street.

    Faisal was happy to keep silent about his organization the AMCs instructions to Moslems not to talk to the FBI about 9-11 when Alamoudi was out on the street.

    But who knows, maybe Faisal is going underground on behalf of his former boss/client Alamoudi. And I suspect that Alamoudi could be very disturbed at the disrespect that some around here are showing the AMCs former lobbyists like Faisal.

    First get elected, then get even could be Alamoudi and his former lobbyist’s motto.

  7. CONVA said on 20 Mar 2007 at 7:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark’s last remark is exactly the plan, one step at a time and when they are the majority in government our women folk will be wearing sole lenght skirts and veils. They have a hell of a lot more patience than we do.

  8. charles said on 20 Mar 2007 at 8:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    You can keep repeating this, but you are wrong.

    And you know you don’t know this for a fact, because when it was pointed out that you were making false claims, you said you were just “giving an opinion”, not claiming to know the truth.

    You won’t find any evidence of this being a problem in any campaign anywhere, because it simply is not an issue.

    I presume you have not sent this to JAG, because you know what you will learn, and you are probably still hopeful that ignorance will protect you from harm, even though you have been told you are wrong repeatedly.

    I also have no idea why you think a competent person with a digital camera could not take those shots, or that a person would never ever be in uniform with his family dressed up except to take campaign pictures. I have been known to occasionally get dressed up with my family for events.

    You know, it might be fun to write Faisal and ask him when the pictures were taken. I can’t find his e-mail right now, maybe you could do that. I know it’s hard to check your facts. And its dangerous when you want to smear people to actually look for the truth, because once you know the truth you really can’t just lie about it.

    Now, if I were running a campaign, I’d have some letter proving you were wrong and post it on another blog just for the fun of it. But I’ve been told by people who actually RUN campaigns (I’ve never actually been involved in a political campaign) that stuff like this never even crosses the radar scope of being something you’d be interested in thinking about.

  9. charles said on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    BTW, just because I’m having fun (and realise I have no idea whether those pictures were taken at any particular time)….

    A few posts ago you suggested Faisal was too fat to fit in his uniform.

    Another post you asserted he was too fat to meet his obligations.

    Now you are saying he posed in his dress uniform for campaign pictures.

    Which means he fits in his uniform. Now. Which you said he didn’t.

    BTW, if these are professional pictures, they aren’t good ones. Look on the back. The picture had his daughter in the same outfit as the front, so I think they are the same time. Look at his glasses — there are multiple reflections and a flash edge.

    No professional worth his salt would have flashed without proper shielding to keep it out of the glasses. They would have also retouched the photo to get rid of the other reflections, if they had been bad enough not to get him to tilt his head properly to avoid them.

    On the front page, his hat is covering up too much of his face to be a good picture. and the other picture has bad shadow lines — a good photographer would have had him walking into the sun so there was no side shadow.

    That doesn’t mean it isn’t a photo taken for the campaign, just that I don’t think it’s a professional photographer’s picture. I happen to believe Faisal fits in his uniform, but I don’t know that either, having never seen him in his uniform in person.

    The front has 3 of the 5 total pictures of him in Uniform, out of 16 pictures.

    Of course, if we find out there was a professional photographer involved, he’s going to be upset with my critique of his abilities.

    I had to go through a “professional” photo shoot with my family a couple of years ago, for an article about hybrids for the Washingtonian Magazine. The photographer took a lot of pictures to get one good one, and I was amazed how good my family could look when someone who knew what they were doing took the picture.

  10. Greg L said on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    I expect to hear from the JAG office on this in the near future. Preliminary indications are that they are very concerned.

  11. Jonathan Mark said on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bolling needs to contact Faisal and say “listen, you have pissed off a lot of people. Something about a terrorist in jail named Alamoudi. What is that all about?”

    Bolling needs to ask Faisal who Alamoudi was and what was Faisal’s connection with him. Then Bolling needs to either explain to the rest of us why Faisal’s response was satisfactory or else Bolling needs to announce that he is sitting out the HOD-51 race and is endorsing no one.

    Anything less is an abrogation of Bolling’s responsibilities as a future gubernatorial candidate. The fact that Alamoudi is in jail for 23 years indicates that he was a threat, and Bolling cannot simply ignore Gill’s past and possibly current ties to the man.

  12. Had to Say said on 20 Mar 2007 at 9:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think Charles likes to hear himself think out loud.

  13. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Mar 2007 at 7:36 am:
    Flag comment

    “But I’ve been told by people who actually RUN campaigns (I’ve never actually been involved in a political campaign) that stuff like this never even crosses the radar scope of being something you’d be interested in thinking about.”

    There we have it. Charles admits he’s NEVER actually been involved in a political campaign, yet he gibbers like a schoolgirl regarding campaigns, every chance he gets. Greg HAS been involved in campaigns, successful ones at that. Charles has no credibility, because he has no experience. While on the subject of credibility, Greg runs a blog that get THOUSANDS of hits per day. Charles runs a blog that no one cares to read, and is only marginally better than a myspace page. Charles opinions are ignored so much on his own blog, that he has to write on all the blogs that people actually read.

    As far as Charle’s argumant that what is written on blogs doesn’t hit a candidates radar-scope, maybe he ought to talk to his buddy, Steve Chapman.

    Charles should run along back to the Shire, and wait for Gandalf to take him on a grand adventure. Maybe the Elves would like to hear what he has to say.

  14. NotNotJayHughes said on 21 Mar 2007 at 6:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Mark:

    What really needs to happen here is Prince William Republican Committee leadership needs to sit down with and say to Faisal something along the lines of this: “you have more baggage than Jeff Dion. Go gentle into that good night and let Julie Lucas win this nomination so we can retain this seat for Republicans.”

    This is a local issue that should be handled by local leadership. The Lt. Governor, if he has 2 brain cells to rub together, will avoid this local fiasco like a leper with halitosis.

    V/r

    NotNotJayHughes

  15. Batson D. Belfrey said on 22 Mar 2007 at 6:35 am:
    Flag comment

    NotNot,

    You would think that the local PWCGOP leadership would put party before personality, however this isn’t the case with Kopko. The same leadership that was prepared to foist Chapman on the 50th, will support Gill to the bitter end.

  16. Jonathan Mark said on 22 Mar 2007 at 2:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why won’t Kopko drop his support of Gill?

    Does Kopko’s support have something to do with Gill’s political patron Grover Norquist? It is one thing for Norquist to have converted to Islam around the time of his marriage to an activist for an Arab-American communal organization. That is Norquist’s right.

    But since doing so Norquist has been seeking to get access for the most extreme elements of his new community, including the now-imprisoned Sami Al-Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi. Norquist brought both of these terrorist jailbirds into the White House back when they were out on the street.

    What is worse, the now-imprisoned Sami Al-Arian attended at least one meeting at Norquist’s Tampa office long after Al-Arian was exposed as an extremist.

    If Kopko won’t let go of Gill then it cannot be because Gill is immensely powerful. Gill is a nebbish. So who is backing Gill?

    I am thinking it is Norquist.

  17. Batson D. Belfrey said on 22 Mar 2007 at 8:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Why won’t Kopko drop his support of Gill?”

    Mr. Mark,

    While you are spot-on with your analysis of Gill, and I commend you for locking your jaws on him, I don’t think you understand the whole Kopko-Chapman-Gill-Fitz-Denny-Barton cabal. This crew came out of the family and tax-payers alliances. They are fanatical social and fiscal conservatives. Some would ask, “what’s wrong with that?”, nothing, if they would have been a bit more pragmatic about it. These are the VCAP SS. They targeted the most senior member of the HOD for a primary challenge. And who did they move into the 50th to do this? Steve Chapman. A baffoon. They didn’t like Sean Cannaughton, so they were preparing to primary him, but ended up not having to. They wanted control of the party apparatus, and took out Mike Murphy. Now they want one of their own in the 51st. That is Gill. Gill who worked hard for all of them. Gill, who ran Chapman’s laughable 2nd campaign. They may be fanatical purists, but they are very loyal to eachother. Remember, even David Koresh had his followers who stayed with him and burned.

    I do see hope. Fitz seems to have broken away from this group. He’s his own candidate. He supported Murphy. Denny seems to have done the same. Both remain true to their conservative principles, but won’t back an unelectable candidate, just because of his positions on an issue. Pragmatic conservatives are what they are.

    The rest are still in the cabal. They will hang together till the end.

  18. CONVA said on 23 Mar 2007 at 8:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Batson you are right on target with the cabal. But don’t give Fitz and Denny any credit for breaking away from the “group”. Between the two of them they could ruin a two ton anvil with a feather and that is exactly they are doing to the PWCRC. After the upcoming conventions you will see a mass exodus from the committee, because then the participates will experience how the cabal loads a convention. They will spend untold hours bringing up insignificant issues for discussion and a host of resolutions. When they see people that have a life leaving, (they have schooled their supporters on the tactic), and they have a majority they will then move to vote. We have experienced this tactic of theirs many times. Those of ther cabal (also include Stewart), constantly bring up the mantra “we must support the republican candidates”, then do their damndest to undermine Maureen Caddigan, Lucy Beauchamp, etal.

  19. freedom said on 24 Mar 2007 at 10:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes, absolutely “unfit”….and what makes him “unfit” has been around for a long, long time…long enough for ALL the electeds to know about it. The unfortunate part is that the only ones to know of his history either read this blog or happen to google “faisal gill.” The general voting public has no idea!!!

    Somehow, the word HAS TO GET OUT so that the voters know of his past associates and history.

    Although sometimes unfortunate, “we are seen as the company we keep” — and that fits all of us, including Faisal.

  20. Jonathan Mark said on 24 Mar 2007 at 11:18 am:
    Flag comment

    I think that we are going to have to go door to door with a lit drop of Republican households to get the message out. If I didn’t know about Gill and found out about him from us then I would attend the HOD-51 convention just to vote Gill down.

    Does anyone know where we can get a list of people who voted in a recent Republican primary?

    My understanding is that PWC would have such a listing for primaries but not for conventions. I doubt that the PWCRC would give us a list of conventioneers. I bet Faisal has one though.

  21. CONVA said on 25 Mar 2007 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    It has been brought out before that Faisal’s wife is missing from his photos. Not only her, but he has another daughter (college age) that is missing. The wife and older daughter do not appear to be from the mid-east. Is that some sort of tactic to ensure the Muslim vote, or a simple oversight?

  22. charles said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    The pictures were not taken for the campaign.

  23. Greg L said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    You have to be kidding me, Charles. How can you possibly promote such a laughably inane piece of spin-doctoring?

  24. Chapman said on 30 Mar 2007 at 10:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey, it is me Chapman. I thought this might work to get Gill’s name in he press. Looks like it is working. Vote for Gill. I tricked everyone.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2520