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

Watch That Space

By Greg L | 26 January 2007 | 51st HOD District | 28 Comments

Our man faisal

Faisal Gill’s website (brought to you by Steve Chapman, whose 2006 campaign website showed, among other things PWCRC Chairman Tom Kopko as his Communications Director for several weeks. ) is now up, as Citizen Tom has reported. It’s not that interesting a read, as too many candidate campaign websites tend to be. (For a notable exception, see Bob Fitzsimmonds site) Take a minute to look at who is endorsing Faisal Gill now, and then check back in a few weeks and see what changes. The difference between now and then may surprise you.

For posterity’s sake, here’s the list as of tonight:

Apparently protocol escapes Faisal Gill somewhat, as “Chairman-at-Large” sounds almost insulting for the Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors. On that basis alone, I think Corey’s got a decent case to pull his name…  And Milt Johns represents Occoquan?  What a joke.



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.

28 Comments

  1. Loudoun Insider said on 26 Jan 2007 at 11:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Molleur, those evil PECers want clean air, clea water, and to preserve our beautiful countryside - those evil bastards!

    Sorry to get sidetracked, but that photo and caption is just too hilarious. Get ready for the xenophobia charges, or charges of the legal variety!

  2. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Jan 2007 at 12:29 am:
    Flag comment

    No mention of Gill’s work as chief lobbyist for Abdurahman Alamoudi and the American Muslim Council on Gill’s website. I think Gill is going to stonewall the matter.

    Did Julie Lucas register to run yet?

  3. Greg L said on 27 Jan 2007 at 12:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Keep watching the BVBL Intel Report.

  4. Citizen Tom said on 27 Jan 2007 at 7:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Do I detect a case of sour grapes? It seems to me that I do.

    The Fox and the Grapes

    A FAMISHED FOX saw some clusters of ripe black grapes hanging from a trellised vine. She resorted to all her tricks to get at them, but wearied herself in vain, for she could not reach them. At last she turned away, hiding her disappointment and saying: “The Grapes are sour, and not ripe as I thought.”

  5. Loudoun Insider said on 27 Jan 2007 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Tom, I like you and your writings, but you seem to not get the point here. There’s no sour grapes from my perspective, nor any that I can see from BVBL or Goodbye Jim. Gill is a flawed candidate - very much so. He may be the greatest most patriotic guy in the nation, but he is simply not going to be able to walk away from these issues - the idiotic Chapman lawsuit included. Julie Lucas appears to be a wonderful candidate and the party should rally around the most electable.

  6. Fenian said on 27 Jan 2007 at 9:36 am:
    Flag comment

    I find his statement on Illegal immigration very vague. I would be surprised if he took a strong stand on this issue as the Muslim community is very opposed to someone being against illegal immigration.

    Look at Dick Black. The Muslim pac was strongly behind him before he took a strong stand against the Herndon Day Labor site. Then in his next election they went 100degrees the other way and supported his opponent - based soley on his strong stand against illegal immigration.

    The Muslims refused to back Miller as well because of his strong stand on illegal immigration.

  7. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Jan 2007 at 10:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Gill’s law firm of Gill and Gallinger advertises its services to illegal aliens awaiting deportation. Gill’s firm suggests that even if one has a pending deportation order it can be stayed by claiming refugee status.

    It would be incredible if opponents of illegal immigration elected an immigration attorney, Gill, who files meritless suits against BVBL and defends illegal aliens.

    It doesn’t matter if people who are Pakistani immigrants would or would not tend to support Gill. The problem is the people who oppose illegal immigration won’t support Gill if they are familiar with Gill’s law firm’s defense of illegal aliens.

    Illegal immigration and opposition to terrorists such as Gill’s employer/client Abdurahman Alamoudi are important issues. Gill fails on both counts.

    It doesn’t matter if he is or is not a nice guy, does or does not oppose abortion, does or does not support gunowners rights, lower taxes, whatever. Illegal immgration and opposing terrorism are two issues on which he fails.

  8. Sheik Yabba Dabba Doo said on 27 Jan 2007 at 12:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg you vile infidel:

    You have defaced the image of our beloved candidate. I am issuing an e-Fatwa against you. I am also appointing Jad as our modern day Salahadin, leading an army of supporters, illegals all, and our champion, ibin-al Chapman. Be afraid.

  9. Tom Kopko said on 28 Jan 2007 at 2:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    I know that in one sense you feel you are doing the GOP a favor by dredging up all the old (and fully discredited) stuff about Faisal. If it’s going to come out, it certainly is better that it come out now rather than later. However, that jihad picture on this thread isn’t “getting it out now”. It is slanderous and ugly and I can’t defend you and more importantly the GOP regarding it.

    Your credibility regarding Faisal is now gone, Greg. It has convinced me that your baggage with him and the bvbl/chapman suit has made it a personal vendetta for you. As you know, I don’t think it was you so I am not sure why you’re still a part of it anyhow.

    But, please, let your vendetta stay in court where it belongs and let this two week tirade be over.

    Why? Because as much as you built upon previous comments of yours and other mostly bloggers, you should have as frequently reminded readers that DHS publicly stated that they and the FBI have found nothing wrong in Faisal’s background, including AMC and Alamoudi which were the exact issues at the time.

    This DHS exoneration of Faisal is the most relevant fact of any yet was almost universally ignored.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128826,00.html

    It was over and done with for DHS and the FBI on August 12, 2004 in their exonerating statement. You may have begged to differ three years later but you could not seriously have thought that you knew better than DHS and the FBI when it comes to personnel security clearances then and even now.

    Grover Norquist’s arm twisting trumping the FBI and DHS on a terrorist
    operative inside DHS was simply ludicrous yet it was the linchpin of any
    argument against Faisal. That’s why the past two weeks has been ludicrous, as
    several have tried to point out, in vain.

    Further, you so easily dismissed DHS’s judgment on security clearances as
    wholly flawed but turned around and ordained as a flawless foregone conclusion every one of their pending deportation case, so as to label Faisal as a defender of illegal immigrants. That logic gap was too wide and too convenient for credibility. Innocent until proven guilty…you, too, are a defendant claiming your innocence.

    And what of Faisal’s work with Norquist for conservative causes in DC as well
    as Chairman of the Pr Wm Taxpayer’s Alliance, plus as spokesperson for the
    Marriage Amendment? What about his support from Dick Black whom we miss, our great Sen. Cuccinelli, and our staunch conservatives Bolling and Stewart? Short shrift.

    So, please, it’s time for this tirade to end and to not embarrass ourselves, the party of Lincoln, any further.

  10. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 28 Jan 2007 at 1:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    With all due respect to the PWC gop chair. I think Gill has about a 2% chance of winning if he is nominated. Do you you folks want to hand a crucial seat in the General Assembly straight to the Democrats???

    The Gill folks either don’t understand or don’t care to understand political baggage does not mean Gill has done anything illegal. It means he absolutely cannot win in this current atmosphere. Wait until the Dems get a piece of this guy and his supposed past. The journalist and Democrats are just sitting back and waiting for this guy to get the nomination.

    This is not just about BVBL’s supposed vendetta. Many folks think Gill just has absolutely NO chance of winning any general election at this point.

  11. Greg L said on 28 Jan 2007 at 1:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tom,

    I find it interesting that just days after Faisal Gill’s supposed “exhonoration”, the Senate Finance committee which was investigating radical islamists in the United States sent a letter to the inspector general at DHS demanding clarification regarding their continuing concerns about Faisal Gill and his involvement with numerous people with troubling backgrounds. I’ve talked about this at some length at http://www.bvbl.net/?p=606

    I am not the only one asking questions about the suspicious conclusion of DHS’ investigation, which never provided any information to explain why they reached the conclusion they did. The complete lack of disclosure on how DHS reached the conclusion, the timing — immediately before a presidential election, the unresolved questions about Gill’s relationship with Asim Ghafoor and the conflicting information provided on Faisal Gill’s SF86 and ethics disclosure forms leave numerous and substantial reasons to believe that the investigation was in fact a whitewash designed to protect the administration.

    But by all means, hang your entire argument on that one thin statement issued by DHS and discredited within days by a bipartisan committee of the U.S. Senate, and let readers determine who has credibility and who does not.

  12. Batson D. Belfrey said on 28 Jan 2007 at 3:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “So, please, it’s time for this tirade to end and to not embarrass ourselves, the party of Lincoln, any further.

    Tom Kopko”

    This is kinda like Pete Rose lecturing players on why you shouldn’t bet on baseball.

  13. Loudoun Insider said on 28 Jan 2007 at 6:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tom Kopko misses Dick Black? Few people in his district do, and he will be thoroughly embarrased if he runs again this year as rumored. This is coming from a conservative guy, just not one of the wingnut variety. This head in the sand attitude of local GOP leadership is what has the party in such dire straits these days.

  14. Hey Ho, Kopko's Gotta Go said on 28 Jan 2007 at 7:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    “This head in the sand attitude of local GOP leadership is what has the party in such dire straits these days.”

    If Kopko had his way, Chapman would have been a candidate, and Rishell would be the delegate.

    Since it appears that there is a challenger, and no convention has been held, I think it is poor form for Kopko to be out here crowing for someone seeking the nomination. I would imagine that should Lucas win, she can expect the same amount of support from the Kopko machine as now Delegate Miller got. I heard it was token at best.

  15. Greg L said on 28 Jan 2007 at 8:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tom has been doing a good job of keeping the momentum in the county, has achieved some pretty notable victories, and has been working relentlessly for Republican candidates. If you disagree with some of his decisions, fine, but don’t lose sight of the good work that he’s been doing. Headquarters is now a functional space that doesn’t smell like swamp funk, meetings have an organized program where committee members hear from elected officials on policy objectives, social events are well attended, and all republican candidates in the county won last cycle.

    Any of you who have been close to unit leadership well know how much effort it requires and how few rewards there are for those efforts. Cut Tom a little slack. If you disagree with a decision, fine, but he doesn’t deserve to be tarred with a broad brush like this.

  16. Tom Kopko said on 28 Jan 2007 at 8:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    You anonymous bloggers are cowards. You are pathetic and your opinions are worthless.

    You anonymous bloggers, sneaking around like spies and blathering into cyberspace, are an embarassment to yourselves, to the GOP, and to America where one has the right to face their accuser.

    I don’t agree with Greg on this issue, though I do on virtually every other, but he has always had the class and the guts to sign his name. He’s even paid the price of being a stand-up guy, a courage of which you anonymous fools are devoid.

    It must be terrible that your cowardice has locked you into your own cages. You can’t very well come out and be tied to the slop you’ve been serving.

    And, how terrible it must be for you to always sign a name other than your own. I hope it doesn’t come easy for you, even now.

  17. Tom Kopko said on 28 Jan 2007 at 8:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    You anonymous fools should see that real, honorable men can respectfully disagree.

  18. Greg L said on 28 Jan 2007 at 8:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tom, I’m a little confused here. What bloggers are anonymously attacking you? Are you referring instead to anonymous commentors?

    If that’s the case, I hope some anons will think about this seriously for a bit, and reconsider their need for anonymity. I think most could probably start tagging their comments with their names without any real likelihood of encountering problems as a result. I support your choice to remain anonymous, but encourage you to use your name if only because your words carry far more weight when their backed by a name.

    Relax, Tom, it’s really not of much significance if folks throw rocks at you on a blog. Happens to me all the time, and I haven’t been hurt by it. Keep the posts and laugh at them at some point down the road, but lashing out only helps encourage it.

  19. Hey Ho, Kopko's Gotta Go said on 28 Jan 2007 at 8:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    “You anonymous bloggers are cowards. You are pathetic and your opinions are worthless.

    You anonymous bloggers, sneaking around like spies and blathering into cyberspace, are an embarassment to yourselves, to the GOP, and to America where one has the right to face their accuser.

    I don’t agree with Greg on this issue, though I do on virtually every other, but he has always had the class and the guts to sign his name. He’s even paid the price of being a stand-up guy, a courage of which you anonymous fools are devoid.

    It must be terrible that your cowardice has locked you into your own cages. You can’t very well come out and be tied to the slop you’ve been serving.

    And, how terrible it must be for you to always sign a name other than your own. I hope it doesn’t come easy for you, even now.”

    WOW, SOUNDS LIKE A TIRADE! BREATH TOM! BREATH!

    Welcome to the blogs Tom. We have the right to post anon here. Nobody has anonymously accused you of being anything accept a horse’s ass, and proving slander an lible will be tough, seeing as you demonstrate this on a frequency as predictable as the Atomic Clock.

  20. Loudoun Insider said on 28 Jan 2007 at 11:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Since I’m from Loudoun I’m not that familiar with this guy. WTF? That was totally uncalled for.

  21. AWCheney said on 28 Jan 2007 at 11:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Tom, are you saying that you have NEVER posted a comment on any blog either anonymously or pseudonymously? Care to respond?

  22. The Skeptic said on 29 Jan 2007 at 2:41 am:
    Flag comment

    The GOP in PWC will nominate the most electable candidate to represent & serve in the 51st District, and I predict it will NOT be Faisal Gill.

    For all of you concerned citizens who have taken the time to exercise your right to free speech on this blog, I encourage you to take the time to write a check or volunteer to help support a new GOP candidate for Delegate who is VERY electable. Talk is cheap but a convention is not, a $1,000 filing fee is just the beginning. Stay tuned for a big announcement!

  23. Jonathan Mark said on 29 Jan 2007 at 3:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    I will write a check for whoever signs up to run against Gill in the primary, just as soon as I know who it is. We should know in a few hours. Get your checkbook pens ready, and let the writing begin!

    I predict that when this electoral process is over Gill’s reputation among Republicans will be even more in tatters than it is now. At that point Gill will surely visit Abdurahman Alamoudi in the federal penitentiary to ask for Gill’s old job back as Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    You’ll see. The East (Pakistan, the birthplace of Gill) - West (Eritrea, the birthplace of Alamoudi) Connection will rise again. Anyone who doesn’t agree is clearly an Islamophobe and a disgrace to the Republican party of Prince William County.

  24. Johnny Bashir said on 30 Jan 2007 at 6:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    jonathan mark I feel sorry for you. I don’t agree with any of your nonsense. You sound like one of those racists who can’t stand any dark skin person to be in-charge of anything. Did you know that Faisal Gill is as much american as you are. He grew up in virginia, served in navy, he has the highest security clearance from federal government, he worked for Homeland security and he is an attorney. His wife is an american, the only language his kids speak is english.

    I think it bothers you that he was born in Asia( I hope you know Pakistan is in Asia). I think his success bother you even more. Why don’t you run against him? Can you? May be not, because narrow minded racists like yourself are usually not educated enough to run for any office.

  25. Greg L said on 31 Jan 2007 at 1:15 am:
    Flag comment

    And here come the racist/bigot charges. This is getting so predictable.

    Heaven forbid anyone express concerns about the decisions a candidate has made in the past and how those decisions might inform their votes if placed in a position of public trust. Hell, I served in the Army, have a security clearance, and I’m NOT an attorney. Should that automatically make me a shoo-in for House of Delegates?

    Heaven forbid. But just call me a racist or something, if you can’t muster the ability to respond to our valid concerns.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2891