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

Faisal Gill Pulls A Chapman

By Greg L | 31 January 2007 | 51st HOD District | 64 Comments

Faisal Gill Push CardAfter seeing Steve Chapman hand out his push cards during the Manassas City municpal elections last May and getting a huge amount of abuse for it, you’d think that folks would have understood how raw attention grabbing like this doesn’t work. Then again, we haven’t seen a whole lot of candidates like Faisal Gill.

Faisal Gill gave this push card to precinct workers to be handed out to voters who were coming to vote in the special election for Occoquan supervisor. Faisal Gill wasn’t on the ballot. Tuesday’s election wasn’t about Faisal Gill, it was about Mike May. But instead of allowing poll workers to concentrate on what was important, this was an opportunity for Faisal Gill to try to steal some attention, just as happened at the poorly run Republican convention Faisal ran, and which nominated Mike May, when he littered his campaign materials there. Some folks I spoke with at the Mike May victory party weren’t too pleased about this attention grabbing stunt.

This was Mike May’s day. It wasn’t an opportunity for a desperate campaign to pull a Steve Chapman stunt and try to steal some attention. Perhaps the colors used in the piece are fitting.



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.

64 Comments

  1. Batson D. Belfrey said on 31 Jan 2007 at 6:00 am:
    Flag comment

    It isn’t even a good piece. How, exactly will Gill “increase Prince William’s share of transportation money”? Northern Virginia delegates have been trying to change the funding formula for years. Gill’s gonna change all that?

    THis is pretty pathetic.

  2. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Jan 2007 at 6:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Maybe Gill is talking about transporting suitcases of Libyan cash. His client/employer Abdurahman Alamoudi was arrested in 2003 in London with a suitcase containing $340,000 in sequentially numbered $100 bills.

    Alamoudi stated that his intent was to split the money in the suitcase into smaller amounts and smuggle it into the United States. So Gill as Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist was concerned with transportation issues after all.

  3. Anonymous said on 31 Jan 2007 at 6:52 am:
    Flag comment

    They were being handing out Mike May literature before people voted and they handed out Gill literature after people voted.

  4. Anonymous said on 31 Jan 2007 at 6:52 am:
    Flag comment

    *They handed out. Not they were being handing

  5. The Skeptic said on 31 Jan 2007 at 7:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Speaking of the Mike May Victory Party, look whose picture is on the front page (above the fold!) of the Potomac News today!

  6. Citizen Tom said on 31 Jan 2007 at 7:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Gosh Greg L, since you are so concerned about his welfare, why don’t you ask Mr. Gill if you can manage his campaign?

  7. Revokin said on 31 Jan 2007 at 8:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Speaking of which, where is Steve Chapman these days?

  8. anon said on 31 Jan 2007 at 9:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Why was Gill allowed to hand out material? He has not been selected as the candidate in the 51st. This is just one example of what is wrong with the PWCRC.

    This would be okay if he was the only republican candidate for the position, but he knew for a fact that he wasn’t. The deadline to file was just the night before. It is simply unacceptable that volunteers were put in the position of publicly taking sides before the nomination contest.

    At best, this is unethical behavior and shows a distinct lack of character.

  9. Not Tom Kopko said on 31 Jan 2007 at 9:59 am:
    Flag comment

    You a-hole anonymous bloggers! Don’t you know I know what’s right! You m-fing SOBs!

  10. Marcus Aurelius said on 31 Jan 2007 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    He was allowed to hand out material because he is a candidate and was making his opinion known, a Free Speech right, that he is the best candidate. I must also remind Batson that every candidate on both sides of the aisle from Northern Virginia promises to correct the funding discrepancy. (HA!) I take no exception with either of these.

    The fundamental issue here is that Faisal still doesn’t get it…he needs to distance himself from his law partner and explain himself on a host of issues. Faisal is a gnat and won’t do well because he is poorly organized, poorly guided by wannabes who walk for office because they won’t risk their name, and has serious character issues. Faisal would have been much better off just woirking to help Mike May instead of doing what Faisal does best, promoting himself.

    Perhaps the real underlying problem here is that Faisal doesn’t want to do the work, he just wants it given to him. He wants to BE something, not DO something. His real political aim is the elevation of Faisal, not restructuring transportation funding formulas, lowering taxes, or stopping abortion on demand. This is his failure and this is why someone else should represent not only the Republican Party, but conservatives also.

    As a friend of mine who supports Faisal noted recently, Faisal, like Gil Davis years ago, is dirty, but he’s my kind of dirty, so you have to support him. For me, I don’t think so.

  11. Citizen Tom said on 31 Jan 2007 at 11:02 am:
    Flag comment

    Marcus Aurelius - Look back at what you wrote. Much of it involves knowing Faisal Gill’s motives. Are a mind reader? What a rare talent!

    When we judge others, we usually do so by projecting our own motivations onto them. When you have provided so little evidence to support your conclusions, have you considered that you might be revealing more about yourself rather than Gill?

    This January. The election is in November. The campaign has hardly begun. Of course Mr. Gill “still doesn’t get it.” At this point Gill can still say what John Paul Jones once so famously said: “I have not yet begun to fight.”

  12. compassionate conservative said on 31 Jan 2007 at 11:14 am:
    Flag comment

    The problem with Mr. Gill handing out material was that he wasn’t doing it. He was pushing Mike may’s campaign workers to do it. My staff and I spent a large part of Monday making calls for Mike and originally I was to help out polling day. This would have put me in a bind as I support Mike, but do not support Mr. Gill.
    If he was the nominee this may have been ok, but he is not!

  13. 10thdistrictrepublican said on 31 Jan 2007 at 11:28 am:
    Flag comment

    Do I detect a typo or at least a usage problem in Gill’s little flier?

    “Building roads more quickly” Wouldn’t it be better just to say quicker?

    I am definitely not a Gill supporter here but I do think he has a right to hand out material if he wants, just not pressure May people to hand them out.

  14. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Jan 2007 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    How did Gill pressure Mike May volunteers to pass out his lit? Could anyone be more specific?

  15. Johnny Bashir said on 31 Jan 2007 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is pathetic to see so many personal attacks on a candidate, so what if faisal/his team handed out his litrature? It shows his intent to win and serve his county. By the way, he is gonna win and he is gonna laugh all the way to Richmond.

  16. Greg L said on 31 Jan 2007 at 1:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bashir, I guess you’re new to this game. That’s OK. Stick around a bit and you’re likely to learn a lot from some of the many commentors, and maybe even myself.

    There’s a lot of folks running in that area this year. Michele McQuigg is running for clerk. Milt Johns is running for School Board Chair. Julie Lucas is running in the 51st. Jeff Frederick, Scott Lingamfelter, and Jay O’brien are running for re-election. And not a single one of these asked anyone to hand out their literature at the polls during the special election. All of these are savvy, experienced elected officials, and if there was a campaigning opportunity to be had, you know they would have been right on top of it.

    The reason they didn’t do so is that it is incredibly bad form to insinuate your campaign into someone else’s election day. It distracts from the important race of the day, on the most critical day of the campaign. It says that your candidacy is more important than the candidacy of the person who is facing an election that very day. Politically, it is delivering a “frack you!” to the person who is being chosen by the voters that day. Hubris doesn’t even begin to cover this.

    But Faisal Gill will push his interests over anyone else’s at every opportunity, or so this would seem to prove. As a result, I’m pretty sure Julie Lucas has a lock on Mike May’s endorsement, as she helped him win without trying to elbow her way into the limelight that needed to be his, and his alone.

    So that’s why it’s a bad idea.

  17. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Jan 2007 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Unfortunately, Johnny Bashir’s prediction of a Faisal victory could come true if us BVBL readers don’t send Julie some money. We should read Johnny’s posting and ask ourselves “okay, what can we do in order to make certain that the fate this Gill supporter predicts for us doesn’t befall us?

    I sent Julie Lucas For Delegate $41 this morning. If hundreds of people donate that small sum she can have the resources that she needs. She won’t need to match Faisal’s wealthy donors ($10K a pop for some of them!) dollar for dollar.

    If you want to help out, BVBL told us how in a previous post. Julie doesn’t have a website up yet but you can still help her using old-fashioned media:

    “”"You can contact her at LucasSchoolBoard@aol.com and at her School Board office at (703) 490-2338 and offer your support. You can also support Julie by mailing a contribution to Julie Lucas for Delegate, PO Box 6145, Woodbridge, VA 22195 She will need a lot of help to overcome Faisal Gill’s early start in fundraising.”"”

    Let’s help Julie Lucas. If not us, who? And if not now, when?

  18. Not Sean Connaughton said on 31 Jan 2007 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    I volunteered for Mike May over the past couple of weeks and each Saturday, Julie Lucas was out as well knocking on doors along with the rest of us. She is a team player and would be a smart pick for the nomination.

  19. Anonymous said on 31 Jan 2007 at 6:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Faisal was out there on Saturdays as well, along with the people he gathered to bring with him.

  20. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Jan 2007 at 10:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    The goal has to be to make certain that no one can claim that they were unaware of Gill’s employment relationships with Abdurahman Alamoudi and Asim Ghafoor, who they are, what they have done, and what Faisal did for them.

    Some people won’t care. That is always the case. Many people in the 8th District don’t care about Jim Moran’s scandals.

    We need to avoid a situation in which people vote for Gill and then afterwards say, really, he was a lobbyist for Abdurahman Alamoudi? And that guy Alamoudi is in jail?

    It may be that the best way to spread the word does not involve being part of the Lucas campaign. There may be other ways.

    We also have to get the word out about Gill’s firms’ advertisements pitched at illegal aliens. Again, avoid a situation in which people can say that they didn’t know.

  21. charles said on 1 Feb 2007 at 12:54 am:
    Flag comment

    The problem with Chapman’s literature last year was that it had misspellings, was an unauthorised sample ballot, and on the sample ballot only endorsed SOME of the republicans, not all of them, and used the sample ballot to push his own campaign.

    NONE of those things is true with the Gill literature.

    At the primary in 2005, we were handing out literature for candidates that didn’t have primaries. That’s smart targetting of voters.

    I can’t believe anybody is crying about “stealing May’s day”. May’s day was over for each voter the moment they walked out of the booth. The reward to the candidate is the victory at the end of the day. This isn’t some award show where you can “steal someone’s glory”.

    If Julie had thought to have literature to have passed out after people left the polling place, everybody here would be praising her foresight. I certainly would.

    And I’d love to hear how anybody was forced “against their will” to hand out Gill’s literature. In 2005, I was asked to hand out literature for the primary for both Bolling and Sean. I did Kilgore and McDonald literature, but not anything with Bolling on it, because I supported Sean. Nobody could make me, or tried to make me, hand out the Bolling literature.

    So, nice try. Let’s go back to the BVBL posts from last year to see exactly what people argued was Chapman’s errors. You will see it was exactly what I say here, and had NOTHING to do with what is now being claimed by the anti-faisal/anti-lawsuit crowd.

    BTW, Greg, when I read your headling, I thought that Gill had forgotten to file. Now THAT would be “pulling a Chapman”. :-)

  22. AWCheney said on 1 Feb 2007 at 1:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles, I believe the point that most are trying to make is that Gill is NOT the official Republican candidate, whereas Mike May was…and it was his election day. It would appear that Gill’s motive for canceling his announcement was far more self-serving than he claimed.

  23. Citizen Tom said on 1 Feb 2007 at 7:24 am:
    Flag comment

    If it was not obvious before, it should be by now that virtually anything Faisal Gill does or does not do, Greg L is going to find something wrong with it. Because everybody agrees she is a nice, hard working lady, Julie Lucas serves to provide Greg a suitable foil. If Julie Lucas had done the same thing Greg has “accused” Faisal Gill of doing, Greg would be bragging about Lucas and telling us all how pathetic Gill is for not doing the same.

    Greg has yet to provide a single solitary fact to substantiate any accusation he has made that Gill is guilty of wrong doing. All he is done is dug up old charges that Federal investigators investigated. These investigators emphatically cleared Gill of wrongdoing, but Greg L knows better; he just cannot say why, but he has sources.

    If you like Julie Lucas, that is fine, but what has that got to do with Gill. Do you have to hate one to like the other? If you do, shame on you.

  24. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Feb 2007 at 8:17 am:
    Flag comment

    “All he is done is dug up old charges that Federal investigators investigated.”

    Oh yeah. The Feds always to a complete job. That’s why Sandy “Burglar” Berger is still awaiting the administration of a polygraph as part of the sentence in his theft of classified documents case. That’s why the Fed is spending millions trying Scooter Libby, when it has already been established that he didn’t “out” anybody, and that the real source was Dick Armitage. The reason Dick isn’t on trail is that no crime was committed. Yes indeed. The Feds know what they are doing…NOT.

    I am glad that the original BVBL and Greg exposed Chapman’s flaws. He was a piss-poor candidate, and had he managed to trip his way into the nomination, he would have been the best candidate the Democrats could have hoped for. I am even happier that Greg is raising questions about Gill’s past associations. The MSM does a terrible job of covering local politics. You may not like the way that Greg connects the dots, but you can’t argue that the dots exist. He’s not making this stuff up. While Gill’s past associations may not concern you, they scare the hell out of me. What scares me just as much is that Gill is even a contender. Is this the best that the PWCGOP can produce? Thank goodness there is an alternative candidate, and one that I have no concerns supporting.

    Note to candidates: This is a google world, rulled by bloggers and Wikies. Make sure that the skeletons in your closet don’t still have meat on them.

    I am for Lucas, and I am sending her a check today. I will be working to get convention delegats signed up for her as well.

  25. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 8:25 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Greg has yet to provide a single solitary fact to substantiate any accusation he has made that Gill is guilty of wrong doing.”"”

    Faisal Gill was the chief lobbyist for the Abdurahman Alamoudi-founded American Muslim Council in 2001 at a time when the now-imprisoned Alamoudi still controlled the organization. Gill served as chief lobbyist after October 2000, when Alamoudi went on television and proclaimed himself a supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas.

    Other politicians, including George Bush, returned their Alamoudi donations prior to or during the time when Gill worked as Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist or lobbying consultant.

    “”"All he is done is dug up old charges that Federal investigators investigated.”"”

    It is not against the law to be the chief lobbyist for a Libyan-funded supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas. There is no reason to believe that federal agents investigated Gill’s lobbying activities.

    “”"These investigators emphatically cleared Gill of wrongdoing,”"”

    When did federal investigators clear Gill of the accusation that he was the chief lobbyist in 2001 for Abdurahman Alamoudi’s AMC? That point is not seriously in dispute by anyone except Charles.

    “”"If you like Julie Lucas, that is fine, but what has that got to do with Gill.”"”

    Clearly a person who dislikes Gill’s candidacy would prefer Julie’s.

    “”"Do you have to hate one to like the other?”"”

    No, but if you do hate one then you would prefer the other.

    “”"If you do, shame on you.”"”

    Has Charles never disliked a candidate? He posted that enemies of the US control the US Senate. That would indicate that there must be dozens of US Senators who he dislikes.

    Apparently the normal rules of political discourse should be suspended so that no one criticizes Faisal Gill. That won’t happen.

  26. Citizen Tom said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark — there you go repeating yourself again, repeating charges everybody else stopped worrying about over two years ago.

    Batson D. Belfrey — Actually, if you have the wrong sort of associations with the wrong sort of people, the Feds are going to give you a security clearance and a job in DHS. Moreover, the 3-star general you work for is not going to endorse your run for public office.

    If you all actually want to do some investigative work, instead of scurrying around like timid little mice, afraid bad Mr. Gill is going to get you if you even email him, why don’t you just look at Gill’s stuff on his web site and verify whether it is true.
    http://faisalgill.com/

  27. Greg L said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:26 am:
    Flag comment

    CT: Such as Gill’s performance as committee Vice-Chair? Did he even attend a single committee meeting during his tenure?

  28. Citizen Tom said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg L, you are the accuser. You have the burden of proof. Comes with the territory.

  29. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:23 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Jonathan Mark — there you go repeating yourself again, repeating charges everybody else stopped worrying about over two years ago.”"”

    It appears that a number of posters on this list do worry about Gill’s back pages. “Everybody else” agrees with Charles in his own imagination, not in reality.

    “”"Batson D. Belfrey — Actually, if you have the wrong sort of associations with the wrong sort of people, the Feds are going to give you a security clearance and a job in DHS.”"”

    First of all, who said Gill even had a clearance?

    Did Gill prepare or review classified documents? If not then Gill may not have had a clearance because Gill may not have needed one. Clearances are always on a need to know basis.

    Many people work on military programs and don’t even have a clearance. It is _extremely_ common.

    “”"Moreover, the 3-star general you work for is not going to endorse your run for public office.”"”

    The 3-star general may not know about Gill’s work for or on behalf of Alamoudi. He may not know who Alamoudi is. Or he may not care.

    “”"If you all actually want to do some investigative work, instead of scurrying around like timid little mice, afraid bad Mr. Gill is going to get you if you even email him,”"”

    Why doesn’t Gill email me if he disagrees with what I say? I wish to preserve my ability to state in a court of law that I have never approached Mr. Gill or attempted to contact him.

    The question is not what I am afraid of. Gill is not going to physically harm me, nor I him. Rather, I wish to make any suit that he files against me more difficult.

    Gill is so litigious that he is suing BVBL, the owner of this very blog on which we speak! Charles confuses my prudence with fear.

    “”"why don’t you just look at Gill’s stuff on his web site and verify whether it is true.
    http://faisalgill.com/“”"

    I have looked at it and observed that Gill does not mention his employment by Alamoudi, the AMC, Asim Ghafoor or any combination of the three on behalf of the American Muslim Council. Therefore his website is irrelevant to the concern that I and others have about Gill’s work for or on behalf of the imprisoned terrorist financier Alamoudi.

  30. Greg L said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:55 am:
    Flag comment

    We have been told that Gill had a clearance of at least TS, and probably TS/SCI w/o poly. I believe that would be a requirement for a Schedule C appointee at DHS. To what purpose that was granted would probably not be publicly available.

  31. Citizen Tom said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark — take a deep breath. Try breathing into a paper bag. Mr. Gill is not coming after you — yet.

    Of course Gill had a clearance. Didn’t you read your own sources?

    Go look up Lt. Gen. Frank Libutti, USMC (Ret.), former Under Secretary of DHS, on Gill’s web site. If two senators took an interest in Mr. Gill’s associations and asked DHS to investigate, I think we can be reasonably certain the general knew about that interest. http://faisalgill.com/

  32. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Of course Gill had a clearance. Didn’t you read your own sources?”"”

    A person with a clearance doesn’t walk around announcing it. You are not supposed to do that. Gill hasn’t stated that he had a clearance. He may have had one. He may not have. I don’t know and neither do you.

    “”"Go look up Lt. Gen. Frank Libutti, USMC (Ret.), former Under Secretary of DHS, on Gill’s web site. If two senators took an interest in Mr. Gill’s associations and asked DHS to investigate, I think we can be reasonably certain the general knew about that interest. http://faisalgill.com/“”"

    I think that we have no way of knowing, unless we are mind-readers, whether the general you speak of even knows who the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi is. He may have heard the name. He may not have heard the name. If he heard it he may remember it. He may not have. He may not care.

    None of your smokescreen is of any help in solving the mystery of what lobbyist Faisal Gill knew about his employer/client the imprisoned terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi and when did Faisal know it.

    Gen. Libetti is not running for office. Faisal Gill is. If Faisal has an aspect of his past at the American Muslim Council that he doesn’t want to discuss then we can all draw appropriate conclusions from Faisal’s reluctance.

  33. Loudoun Insider said on 1 Feb 2007 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan Mark is one determined dude!

  34. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 1:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"We have been told that Gill had a clearance of at least TS, and probably TS/SCI w/o poly. I believe that would be a requirement for a Schedule C appointee at DHS.”"”

    The Google search I did contains no mention of Gill’s having been granted a clearance. I merely read that he applied for one and that there was doubt as to the veracity of his description of his work at or for Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council in 2001.

    It doesn’t matter anyway, because lobbying for Alamoudi and Hezbollah and Hamas would not necessarily deny one a clearance. It would depend what the nature of the lobbying was. A common jihadist complaint is that the laws banning financing of Hamas and Hezbollah are unfair. Lobbying to change those laws would probably not result in denial of a clearance.

    Gill could perhaps claim that he was a registered lobbyist and was doing what he was paid to do on behalf of a client. But we don’t know what Gill claims his relationship with the imprisoned Alamoudi was, because Gill refuses to discuss it.

  35. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 1:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Jonathan Mark is one determined dude!”

    Backatcha, bucko!

  36. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Feb 2007 at 1:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    “We have been told that Gill had a clearance of at least TS, and probably TS/SCI w/o poly.”

    Gill would have had the TS automatically, as an officer in the USN. All officers have at minimum a TS. The TS/SCI would have come with his commission also, if his job required access to classified materials, to include cytological material, Keying Material and the like. This clearance would have gone inactive upon his separation from the military, and could have been reactivated with an update, if he had a requirement for a clearance to perform his duties at DHS.

    Aldrich Ames and John Walker had clearances. CT’s argument is specious. CT also asks us to completely ignore the fact that he did work for the AMC, and all of the unsavory characters there unto pertaining. Sorry. Associations are there. You cannot deny them.

    Gill’s positions matter not. Like his client/friend/confidant Steve Chapman, good intentions and a willingness to serve are not enough. Electability is what matters. Gill’s weakness as a candidate is apparent. Were he a Democrat, it might be a different story, as the libs will tolerate drug-users, sex-offenders and all manner of criminality. Republicans need to present candidates that are electable, if we are to maintain our very threatened majority. Minority parties do not get their agendas enacted. That is the reality of politics. For those who say “I only care about issues” I say, “Wake up and look around”. The issues you care about will not see the light of day, if you can’t get your candidate elected. If Gill is lucky enough to win the nomination, the Dems will have a field day with this stuff. If you don’t think that the voter’s mailboxes won’t be choked with party-funded, independent expenditure related materials portraying Gill as a friend to terrorists, then you are pretty damned naive. Gill will be on the defensive the entire time, never getting in front of the issues. I also think that he will get very little support from the republican caucus, as all seats are up for election.

    If Gill wants to run, let him so as an independent. Then let’s see if his background doesn’t matter.

  37. Citizen Tom said on 1 Feb 2007 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good grief. See here:
    http://governingprinciples.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-on-the-trial-of-faisal-gill-in.html

  38. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 3:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good grief yourself. You are simply stone cold unwilling to see what is right in front of you.

    Consider someone who admits to having used drugs but gets a Top Secret security clearance anyway. It happens.

    Getting the security clearance does not mean that the person acted properly, or even legally, in using drugs. It merely meant that the drug use was not sufficient to warrant a denial of the clearance.

    My own observation is that the most common reason for people being denied security clearances is debt and bad credit. That is because experience has shown that secrets are more often sold than given away for free. The primary motive for the sale of secrets is pecuniary.

    We allege that Faisal Gill acted wrongly in serving as the chief lobbyist for Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council in 2001. You do not dispute that Gill was indeed Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    Rather, you insist that Gill acted properly because he had a clearance. It reminds me of the scene from Animal House where Tim Matheson says “Back off, man, I’m pre-law,” except now it’s “back off, man, Gill had a security clearance.

    Do did half the people who post here at one time.

    That Gill had a security clearance tells us nothing about whether Gill acted improperly in being the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi.

  39. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Feb 2007 at 5:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good grief. See here:

    And your point is WHAT?

    As I pointed out, Aldrich Ames had a clearence

    John Walker had one.

    Denise K. Woo had one.

    A lot of bad apples had clearences. Again, your argument that Gill is OK because he had a security clearence is specious.

    Just admit that Gill is your guy, You have drank the Kool-aid. It’s ok. We understand. you are among friends here. Should the will of Allah, the merciful, the great, be served, and Gill win the nomination, I expect you to receive much rougher treatment at the hands of NLS, and Howling Latina. Be strong. You haven’t even talked about the issues, and guess what, you never, ever will. You will think you had kicked over a nest of fire ants. You will be cursing, and swatting, and dancing around. But you won’t be able to advance your agenda.

    Me, I’ll be working to get Lucas nominated, and then elected. I like the odds.

  40. pwcman said on 1 Feb 2007 at 5:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    jonathan since you are so hooked up on faisal’s dealing with Alamoudi, do you seriously believe that had Faisal known that Alamoudi was up to no good, he would still work with him? I don’t think so. faisal is a young american who is about to change the history in Prinnce william county. I think we should forget the past and make sure a genuine republic candidate(faisal)wins.

  41. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 5:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"jonathan since you are so hooked up on faisal’s dealing with Alamoudi, do you seriously believe that had Faisal known that Alamoudi was up to no good, he would still work with him?”"”

    Had he known that Alamoudi would GET CAUGHT then the answer is no, under those circumstances Gill would not have worked for Alamoudi.

    The problem is that Alamoudi in his plea bargain stated that he had been laundering Libyan money since 1995. Gill was working for Alamoudi in 2001. That was after Alamoudi had gone on TV in 2000 on three occasions and expressed his support, in two cases to cheering crowds, for Hamas and Hezbollah.

    2001 is after President Bush returned his Alamoudi donation in 2000 because of Alamoudi’s expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah. It is after Hillary Clinton did.

    So why did Gill ignore the warning signs and work for Alamoudi? What did Gill know about Alamoudi’s dealings, and when did he know it? And what exactly did Gill lobby for when he lobbied for Alamoudi’s AMC?

    Gill is stonewalling this issue. That might work but I doubt it. So again I ask, what did Gill know about Alamoudi’s jihadist activities, and when did he know it?

    “”"I don’t think so.”"”

    It is quite possible that if Gill expected that Alamoudi would not be caught then he would look the other way. But it was only because Alamoudi was stupid enough to carry a suitcase with $340,000 in sequentially marked $100 bills in it that he got caught.

    We don’t know, because Gill is stonewalling this matter. He thinks if he ignores the issue it will go away. No, it will not.

    “”"faisal is a young american”"”

    Julie Lucas is also a “young American.” You mean like in the David Bowie song?

    “”"who is about to change the history in Prinnce william county.”"”

    Gill has $51,000. Lucas has far less. Gill has the support of the dhimmis Kopko, Cuccinelli, and Bolling. Lucas has the support of the people. If Julie Lucas defeats Gill (and she will if we give her money and help her) then WE WILL BE THE ONES WHO CHANGED HISTORY! We will have shown that $51,000 cannot buy the voters of PWC, and that dhimmitude is un-American, and that Gill’s law partner and former employer Asim Ghafoor’s call for an Islamic state is un-American.

    If we wanted to be dhimmis we would ask Ghafoor to help us move to Talibanland.

    “”"I think we should forget the past”"”

    That’s a good slogan. “Forget the past and be condemned to relive it! Faisal Gill for Delegate!”

    “”"and make sure a genuine republic candidate (faisal) wins.”"”

    Julie Lucas is not a Republican now? Sez who? Faisal? I suppose Abdurahman Alamoudi, who three times gave to Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) was a Republican?

    I suppose the in part Libyan-funded AMC who Gill worked for as an employee or consultant was Republican!

    Spare me. Julie is a Republican. The question is whether, given his past choice to lobby for the imprisoned terrorist Alamoudi, Gill is one.

  42. Anonymous said on 1 Feb 2007 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who does Julie have the support of?

  43. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Feb 2007 at 5:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    faisal is a young american who is about to change the history in Prinnce william county. I think we should forget the past and make sure a genuine republic candidate(faisal)wins.

    Much the way Steve Chapman made history as the first candidate to forget to file, blame it on a blogger, and file suit against a blogger, therebye making himslef look like a total DOOK!

  44. Loudoun Insider said on 1 Feb 2007 at 6:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    For the life of me I just cannot understand why otherwise reasonable people (CT) would be so behind this guy. As stated above by many, these issues will simply not disappear if Gill gets the nomination. Jonathan and Batson make great points, and this is all about winning elections after all!

  45. Greg L said on 1 Feb 2007 at 7:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 5:45: I can’t scoop the endorsement list, and honestly I’m not entirely sure who will be on it, but I can tell you it’s going to be substantial. It should come out when Julie officially endorses.

  46. AWCheney said on 1 Feb 2007 at 9:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Who does Julie have the support of?”

    Well Anonymous, I don’t believe that Julie has had the opportunity to accumulate endorsements as yet…she had the good taste to wait until AFTER the special election before she started campaigning.

  47. James Young said on 1 Feb 2007 at 9:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Maybe, LI, just maybe, the people who are backing Faisal are being reasonable (not to say that those who back Julie are unreasonable), and it is those who are attacking Faisal with charges upon which he was cleared and with obvious ulterior motives (i.e., he dares to represent someone suing our host) and others (”Batson,” who sounds to me suspiciously like AWCheney in drag), who are being unreasonable.

    A great deal of it seems to go back to those who will never forgive anyone who had the temerity to oppose Harry Parrish’s re-election after he allowed himself to be rolled by a Democrat Governor seeking an unnecessary tax increase.

    And BTW, “Batson,” I won’t speak to the other matters, but if Chapman prevails in his lawsuit against Greg, he will not “look like a total DOOK!” for having filed his lawsuit. And that it’s still pending (i.e., hasn’t been dismissed) speaks volumes about its merits.

  48. AWCheney said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Only an idiot (oh, excuse me)…only someone of limited deduction skills would confuse me with Batson. Batson is OBVIOUSLY someone from the City of Manassas who frequents City Council meetings, or may even be someone ON the City Council. And only someone with an extraordinarily limited imagination would have to continually harp on things which he really knows absolutely nothing about because he cannot adequately argue his position.

    [Ed note: post edited]

  49. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    (”Batson,” who sounds to me suspiciously like AWCheney in drag)

    BoHoo-BoHoo. Greg, James Young is personally attacking me. Please edit is coments. BooHoo! I can’t take his withering attacks on me. Please, for the love of all that is good, please edit his comments. If you don’t edit his comments, I will be personally ruined for life, and may have to talk to Gill about representation in a lawsuit. BooHoo! Greg, please grant me some peace, and edit James Young’s comments. I can’t live with these personal attacks. Oh poor me, the slip-and-fall lawyer called me a trannie. I am scandalized. Greg, please, I am begging you, edit James Young’s comments.

    James…The fact that the Chapman suit hasn’t gone ANYWHERE (ie. it hasn’t gone anywhere) also speaks volumes.

    The fact that you always leap to Chapmans defense speaks volumes too. I am begining to wonder if you have a clown suit, and a crawl-space.

    As to my fashon sense, perhaps I do emulate the great AWCheney, but she’s a fine lady, and my doing so is a tribute to her.

  50. James Young said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The fact that the Chapman suit hasn’t gone ANYWHERE (ie. it hasn’t gone anywhere) also speaks volumes.”

    Hasn’t gone anywhere? Only to someone who doesn’t understand the litigation process. A meritless lawsuit would be quickly dismissed, assuming competent legal representation. I don’t know who represents Greg, but I assume competence. Litigation (pleadings; discovery; motions practice) takes time, something even a “slip-and-fall lawyer” knows. Perhaps you can actually find one to educate you, assuming (against the evidence) that you are educable. To be sure, Chapman may lose. But his claim cannot be dismissed as meritless by knowledgeable commentators, because it has not been dismissed as meritless by the court.

    And, just like AWCheney, “Batson,” you assume it is “defense” merely to note the meritlessness of the attacks. But then again, by your stirring tribute, one can only assume that you also endorse lying about complicity in specious and dismissed criminal charges against a candidate and other sleazy politlcal smears. Chapman certainly has his flaws, as all of us (except possible you/AWCheney) do, but he managed to get 45% of the primary vote against a long-time incumbent who allowed himself to be rolled by a Democrat Governor seeking an unnecessary tax increase.

    “And only someone with an extraordinarily limited imagination would have to continually harp on things which he really knows absolutely nothing about because he cannot adequately argue his position.”

    “Limited imagination”? Hardly. “Long and encyclopaedic memory of your misdeeds” is more accurate.

  51. AWCheney said on 1 Feb 2007 at 10:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    As I said before, “And only someone with an extraordinarily limited imagination would have to continually harp on things which he really knows absolutely nothing about because he cannot adequately argue his position.”

  52. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"it is those who are attacking Faisal with charges upon which he was cleared”"”

    Faisal was the imprisoned terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist in 2001.

    That makes Gill a terrorist sympathizer, because Alamoudi is a terrorist serving a 23 year sentence in a federal prison.

    No one forced Gill to work for Alamoudi as a lobbyist. Gill chose to do so as an adult and now he is facing the consequences.

    That is appropriate. Support for terrorists like Alamoudi has consequences for those who provide the support.

  53. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 9:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.”

    Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.”

    And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years. Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.

    Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.”

    ‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.

    I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right? And you supported Bill Clinton, right? Guess that makes you a “perjurer/adulterer/rapist sympathizer.” Then there’s Dan Rostenkowski. Let’s add “tax-evader sympathizer.” Oh, and let’s not forget “check-kiter sympathizer.”

    Unless you can make the case that Faisal knew Alamoudi was a terrorist money-launderer, your claim is absurd.

  54. Batson D. Belfrey said on 2 Feb 2007 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    James,

    This is a serious question, and not a poke at you: Regardless of the truth of the allegations against Gill, how do you think this effects his electability, and how badly do you think the Dems will come at him? Maybe Gill didn’t know what was going on at the AMC. Maybe he was just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. Do you honestly believe that the Dems will not make political hay out of this stuff, and that it won’t impact the voters?

    I am really interested in your assessment.

  55. Greg L said on 2 Feb 2007 at 9:44 am:
    Flag comment

    James, I think there are some important qualitative differences to consider here. You quite clearly had nothing to do with the improper actions that those individuals took. Faisal Gill’s connection with Alamoudi isn’t quite as disconnected and has been somewhat shrouded in mystery that hasn’t been resolved. At the same time Faisal Gill was working for Alamoudi, Alamoudi was proclaiming himself as a Hamas and Hezbollah supporter and funneling money into the US from Libyan dictator and terrorist financier Moammar Quaddafi. The AMC was a pretty small organization, so it’s hard to accept that Faisal, working in a pretty senior position there was entirely unaware of what was going on and had no connection to it.

    If you were representing someone at the exact same time that your client was engaging in illegal behavior, I’m pretty sure folks would question how much you knew about that illegal behavior and your motivation for continuing to represent that client. Knowing you, I’m sure you would be as upfront about this as attorney-client priviledge would allow and not try to duck the question. And to many people that would be satisfactory.

    Gill’s association with Asim Ghafoor only reinforces the concerns. One instance of being associated with unsavory characters might be an aberration, but when this starts looking like a consistent and continuing pattern, the perception at least is that there’s a grave problem here.

  56. pwcman said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    what is next? you gonna accuse president Bush(senior) for supporting Talibans. He had taliban delegation visit white house. Talibans were “freedom fighters”, they got thier training,weapons and funds from usa. So should we hold papa bush responsible for supporting them?

  57. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.””"”

    From chief lobbyist for a terrorist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.” I.e, Gill sympathized with Alamoudi the terrorist. That is why he was the terrorist’s lobbyists.

    “”"Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.””"”

    Were you Terry Orr’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in the criminal activity? If so, what did you do on Terry Orr’s behalf as his chief lobbyist? I need more info before I can determine the propriety of your actions as Terry Orr’s putative chief lobbyist.

    “”"And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years.”"”

    That might explain why you support Gill. Norquist is Gill’s mentor. Without Norquist the candidacy of Faisal Gill would be a joke.

    “”"Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.”"”

    You were never Abramoff’s chief lobbyist. Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist. No matter how much James Young tries to insinuate that Young is as guilty as Gill, James Young stops short of providing information that Young was ever a convicted criminal’s chief lobbyist while the convicted criminal was committing his crimes.

    “”"Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.””"”

    Were you the murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal activity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    “”"‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.”"”

    Were you the attempted murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal actitity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    “”"I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right?”"”

    WRONG!!!!! I am no longer a Dem because where I live the Dems almost all support the odious Rep. Jim Moran. I was twice denied membership in the Lee District Democratic Committee. The first time they rejected me they even pocketed my $35 application fee.

    I voted for George Allen last year. Don’t assume what you don’t know, James Young.

    “”"And you supported Bill Clinton, right?”"”

    Absolutely, and I gave money to both of his presidential campaigns and to his wife’s first senatorial campaign.

    “”"Guess that makes you a “perjurer”"”

    Alamoudi is in jail for 23 years for terrorist money laundering. Bill Clinton was never even indicted for a crime, let alone convicted. YOU ARE BLIND TO ALAMOUDI’S CRIMES! You are blind to the fact that Alamoudi sits in a jail cell. Alamoudi’s crimes are proven.

    “”"/adulterer/”"”

    I don’t even want to go there. Suffice it to say that the PWC Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too, would be much smaller organizations if adulterers did not join.

    “”"rapist”"”

    This bores me. Bill Clinton is not running for the HOD-51 nomination. Faisal Gill is. We have questions about what Gill did on behalf of the imprisoned terrorist Alamoudi while Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

    You can respond to our reasonable questions by railing against Bill Clinton if you like. It is not much of an answer though.

  58. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"what is next? you gonna accuse president Bush(senior) for supporting Talibans.”"”

    No, because Bush senior is an old man and is not running for office. Someone else could reasonably accuse him, though.

    “”"He had taliban delegation visit white house.”"”

    Unusually bad grammar, suggesting that English is not the author’s first language.

    “”"Talibans were “freedom fighters”, they got thier training,weapons and funds from usa. So should we hold papa bush responsible for supporting them?”"”

    Yes. However, Bush senior is retired from politics and I guess is in his 80s. I have no interest in criticizing him in 2007.

  59. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 1:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Batson,” I didn’t think you were interested in the opinion of someone you dismiss as a “slip-and-fall lawyer,” so why should I bother?

    Greg, perhaps there is a “qualitative difference,” but unless you can come up with SOME evidence of wrongdoing by Faisal, your charges are approaching just about as substantive as some of your prior claims against He Who Shall Remain Nameless. You ascribe to him knowledge with little or no understanding of his representation, or of the walls that Alamoudi built around his various behaviors. By way of example, I represented Terry in a Right to Work case against the NFLPA. He later appeared at a fundraiser for my candidacy for School Board. I had utterly no knowledge of his post-football professional activities, and ascribing to me such knowledge is utterly specious. Nothing more than guilt by association. This sounds a lot like the “case” against Faisal.

    And it’s a “case” that you’re all too willing to believe, for perhaps understandable personal reasons. That your most ardent cheering section in this regard consists of a Democrat and people highly resentful of Faisal’s role in Chapman’s nearly-successful run against Harry Parrish should be a clue to you that these charges cross the line from reasonable questions about “electability” into an effort to grasp at any straw by embittered prigs eager to pursue their childish grudge.

  60. Batson D. Belfrey said on 2 Feb 2007 at 1:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Batson,” I didn’t think you were interested in the opinion of someone you dismiss as a “slip-and-fall lawyer,” so why should I bother?

    No, actually I am. From time to time you do make a point or two that I have to agree with. Your point about the NFL player that you represented is an example. You should bother because you are debating the merits of the charges against Gil, and you think that he is being treated unfairly. I asked you an honest question. Right or wrong, does this impact his electability?

    I believe it does, and I am looking at it from a purely pragmatic view. Issues are what SHOULD be discussed. However, you know as well as I that campaigns rarely focus only on the issues. You brought up Dion’s sexual orientation on this and other blogs. I did the same thing. His divorce, living arrangements, custody status and even his being a cub-scout leader were all brought up, and I am sure that it influenced a few voters. At the very least, it helped motivate Reublicans to vote.

    This is just the way it is. I think that the Dems are salivating at the chance to face Gil. I believe that the lack of an announced Democrat candidate is a sign that they are waiting to see who the nominee is. I think that the treatment that Gil has received on Republican blogs pales in comparison to what the Liberal blogs will do to him.

    So, what do you think?

  61. Batson D. Belfrey said on 2 Feb 2007 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “what is next? you gonna accuse president Bush(senior) for supporting Talibans. He had taliban delegation visit white house. Talibans were “freedom fighters”, they got thier training,weapons and funds from usa. So should we hold papa bush responsible for supporting them?”

    Who the hell is typing this? Tonto? I hope this is a product of our public school system. Kimosabe in heap big trouble!

  62. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 2:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young seems very involved in this matter. How well does he know Gill? Is he or has he ever been representing Gill in any criminal or civil matter?

    I am not convinced that James Young is sufficiently distant from Gill to have clean hands in this matter.

    At this point we do need to ask James Young: Asim Ghafoor’s contracting firm was Gill’s nominal employer when Gill worked as the AMCs chief lobbyist. Ghafoor is currently Gill’s law partner.

    Does James Young oppose Ghafoor’s proposals to create an Islamic state in the US, with Moslems at least subject to Sharia law and non-Moslems reduced to dhimmi status?

    Is James Young at all concerned that Ghafoor was Gill’s nominal employer while Gill worked for the AMC in 2001, and is Gill’s law partner now?

    If Gill becomes a Delegate then would Gill’s law practice, and therefore that of his partner Asim Ghafoor, benefit? Is James Young comfortable assisting Asim Ghafoor, directly or indirectly, in his attempts to institute sharia law in the US?

    Has James Young ever met Asim Ghafoor? Alamoudi? Gill and Alamoudi together? Has James Young ever discussed Gill with Norquist? Norquist with Gill?

  63. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 6:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, all that you managed to demonstrate with that last comment is that you’ve jumped the shark.

    But thanks for confirming what most reasonable people should have suspected all along: you’re insane.

  64. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 8:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, we have a group of self-interested individuals who want to put Gill over. They have their agendas.

    You seem to know Gill. You say you know Gill’s patron, Grover Norquist. You are irrationally insistent that Gill’s having worked as chief lobbyist for the imprisoned terrorist Alamoudi, while Alamoudi was committing his crimes, while or after Alamoudi proclaimed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah, is insignificant.

    That is your story. You are sticking to it. But why are you sticking to it? A reasonable person would conclude that Gill’s job as Alamoudi’s lobbyist was to push Alamoudi’s agenda. That agenda is a radical jihadist one.

    Asim Ghafoor, who I suspect you also know, has openly stated on two occasions his goal of turning America into an Islamic state.

    And you insist that Ghafoor, who is Gill’s law partner now, and through whom AMC contracted Gill’s lobbying services in 2001, is irrelevant. Why does Ghafoor, an acknowledged Islamist, keep popping up over a five year period where Gill is?

    You do not have clean hands on this matter. You are involved with Gill and Norquist and probably Ghafoor behind the scenes. That is the only explanation I can see for your irrationality, your delusional insistence that it doesn’t matter what Gill did or did not do FOR A CONVICTED TERRORIST WHO WAS COMMITTING HIS CRIMES WHILE GILL LOBBIED FOR HIM.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2866