"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
More Influence From Radical Islam
By Greg L | 20 February 2007 | 51st HOD District | 3 Comments
Just in case the questions regarding candidate for the 51st HOD District Faisal Gill’s previous work on behalf of convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi seemed to some to be an extraordinary and far-fetched concern, ABC has a story today regarding the case of a big donor to the NRCC by the name of Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari who is on trial for financing terrorism. Some of the parallels here are disturbing, although they may well be nothing more than an unusual coincidence. Regardless, Republicans need to address the issue of potential radical islamic influence within the party before more of these coincidences develop into campaign fodder for the Democrats, or worse, dangerously pollute Republican principles.
Apparently Mr. Alishtari developed extensive ties with the White House, and a strong business relationship with SOCOM, the arm of the Department of Defense that handles highly classified military operations and national security matters. He has donated over $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee since 2002, recieved several awards from the NRCC, and become a pretty significant player in New York politics. A federal indictment accuses Mr. Alishtari of laundering $152,000 and providing advanced military equipment to terrorist training camps. Alishtari has plead not guilty to the charges.
Faisal Gill’s work on behalf of the American Muslim Council and the Islamic Institute is somewhat of a mystery, and there’s more that we don’t know about his relationships with principals of these organizations — some whom are in prison or currently under investigation — than we actually do know. We do know that Faisal Gill managed to come up with some pretty unusual campaign contributions which are disturbingly similar in appearance to the Alishtari case as well as the more local controversy involving “Safa Group” contributions to political campaigns. If enough of these similarities pop up, not only will they trash any political aspirations of the candidates themselves, but they may quite possibly tarnish the Republican Party as well.
We can’t hope that this stuff will just go away. Let’s get these questions answered, and quickly.
UPDATE: I noticed that Suhail Khan of the Islamic Free Market Institute is a scheduled as a moderator at CPAC next week entitled “Terrorism: Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism the Problem?”. Debbie Schussel had this to say about Mr. Khan:
But Khan is an Islamist who invited terror supporters and anti-Semites to the Bush White House (where he once worked) and whose father brought Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri into the United States to raise money for Al-Qaeda. His father, Mahboob Khan, late founder and head of the Santa Clara Mosque, brought Zawahiri into the U.S. twice on a fake passport in the mid-’90s to raise money for Al-Qaeda.
It would be different if the junior Khan did not share his father’s views. But Khan invited his father’s former congregant and Islamic leader, Hamza Yusuf, to the White House to meet with President Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal. That, despite this Yusuf utterance: “The Jews would have us believe that God has this bias to this little small tribe in the Middle of the Sinai desert and all the rest of humanity is just rubbish. I mean that this is the basic doctrine of the Jewish religion and that’s why it is a most racist religion.” Yusuf is an associate of Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), who is on the “no fly list” and was kicked out of Israel for raising and distributing money for HAMAS.
With a policy director like Suhail Khan, it’s no surprise that Campbell consistently voted against Israel while in Congress.
WTF? Is the Republican leadership just not getting it?
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.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
3 Comments
Views: 897
Loading ...
No matter how much Gill’s dhimmi supporters shake and dance, Gill was still working for Abdurahman Alamuodi’s American Muslim Council in the aftermath of 9-11. As the rubble cleared in New York and Arlington Gill’s AMC was telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI.
Contrary to what Gill supporter Charles has posted here, the AMC did NOT simply tell Moslems not to talk to the FBI without an attorney. Gill’s AMC told Moslems not to speak to the FBI AT ALL:
The American Spectator reported in its 12/17/2003 edition:
“”"If the crack research team at the FBI had looked at the AMC website in the aftermath of September 11, however, this is what it would have found under the heading, The Law Says You Don’t Have to Talk to the FBI: “The FBI is looking for information to use against you, your family and/or your community. The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI.…FBI agents are trained to get you to make incomplete or contradictory statements — which later can be used against you in court. It is better to say nothing.”"”"
There is nothing in the above AMC quote that instructs Moslems to hire an attorney and then talk to the FBI. Such claims are a figment of Charles’ and the other Gill stooges’ imaginations. Show me where the AMC on its website ever, ever, qualified its instructions to Moslems not to talk to the FBI. It was a blanket instruction: “It is better to say nothing.”
Gill’s supporters may not care what Gill did at the AMC. They may not want to know. They may not want anyone else to know either.
But so many people in PWC and all over the United States will want to know that continued stonewalling by Gill as to his activities at the AMC won’t work. Gill endorsers Bill Bolling and Cooch won’t be able to stonewall either.
I look forward to attending a Cooch event and find out what Cooch supporters think about telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI. I want to find out what Cooch supporters think about the Cooch endorsee Faisal Gill working for an organization, in the aftermath of 9-11, that told Moslems not to talk to the FBI investigators trying to solve 9-11.
Gill’s candidacy is like someone running in a race and dragging a big locked box behind him. And if you ask what is in the box the runner’s friends will say “What is your problem? Are you prejudiced? It is not illegal to drag a locked box behind you! Don’t ask about what is in that box! Faisal, don’t tell anyone what is in that box! Sue BVBL and any other blogger who asks about that box, Faisal!”
The locked box is Faisal’s tenure as the AMCs chief lobbyist. We would like to know what is in that box. Faisal doesn’t have to tell us, but he doesn’t have to be the Republican HOD-51 nominee either.
Many people live healthy and productive lives without ever representing HOD-51 in Richmond. If Faisal wants to keep part of his past a secret then Faisal can be one of those people. Everyone goes home happy. What is the problem with that?
[Ed note: comment edited.]
And of course this has nothing to do with Gill other than this “association” because he worked for some organization that has some ties to someone who did something.
I saw this article today, and knew that Greg would spin it against Gill somehow. I figured JM would follow up. It’s like sad tag-team.
I’m no longer “defending” anybody. I suspect Faisal will either defend himself or not, and voters will respond or not, and somehow JM will not be the king who crowns the republican nominee for the 51st district.
JM made some reference to some organization telling it’s people not to talk to the FBI. I pointed out that this would be a fine thing to tell people, that if you were in a suspect group you would be wise to get a lawyer and not volunteer information.
Somehow JM has convoluted that into suggesting I made claims about what “AMC” did. I’ve never even visited their web site, and all I know about “what they did” is what JM posted here, and even then I have to admit that I get bored quickly with JM’s writings so I probably didn’t read a lot of it.
I went through all this with Michelle back in 2004 when this all was discussed and resolved. I’ve no interest in rehashing the arguments with JM at this point, given that he is set in his ways and has no interest in getting any answers or in changing his opinion based on those answers.
So for the record, I think it was wise for muslims after 9/11 to show caution when talking to the FBI. If a group told them to do so, that was good advice. Since there is absolutely zero evidence that the work Faisal did had anything to do with this subject, it is all rather something I have no interest in, although if I was a Gill advisor which I’m not I’d suggest he set up a dinner interview with Michelle Malkin, answer all her questions, and see if he can get her on his side.
I take no credit for any claims as to what any muslim organization actually did or didn’t do. That’s JM’s thing.
Being obfuscatory about one’s work history is no way for Faisal Gill, or for anyone, to run for office. Running for office is applying for a job. When you apply for a job you speak about the previous work that you have done.
“”"Gill other than this “association” because he worked for some organization that has some ties to someone who did something.”"”
The issue is not Gill’s mere association with the now-defunct American Muslim Council, it is Gill’s PARTICIPATION in the AMC as its chief lobbyist while it was taking extremist positions.
The founder, leader and funder of the AMC at that time, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is now serving a 23-year sentence. Although Gill probably didn’t know it, it is likely that part of Gill’s salary was paid with laundered Libyan government money.
“”"I suspect Faisal will either defend himself or not,”"”
So far Gill has not provided the public with information about what Gill did on behalf of the AMC.
“”"and voters will respond or not,”"”
Some will respond and some will not.
“”"JM made some reference to some organization telling it’s people not to talk to the FBI. I pointed out that this would be a fine thing to tell people,”"”
Notice that Gill’s defenders refuse to use the phrase “American Muslim Council.” In his first paragraph Charles refers to the American Muslim Council as “some organization.” Abdurahman Alamoudi its founder, leader and funder becomes “some person.”
Alamoudi’s 23-year sentence for money-laundering becomes in Charles’ obfuscatory writing “did something.”
It is clear that Gill’s defenders have become evasive about what Gill did at the AMC.
“”"that if you were in a suspect group you would be wise to get a lawyer and not volunteer information.”"”
I have no problem with getting a lawyer. However, Charles’ assertion that the several million Moslems in the United States should not talk to the FBI is, quite frankly, appalling.
Why was Gill working as the chief lobbyist for an organization, the AMC, which told Moslems in the aftermath of 9-11 not to talk to the FBI?
“”"Somehow JM has convoluted that into suggesting I made claims about what “AMC” did.”"”
Charles just made a statement about what the AMC did, above. He has done so all along. Previously, Charles had trouble coming to terms with the AMCs instructions to Moslems not to talk to the FBI. Charles incorrectly asserted that the AMC had merely told Moslems to get attorneys before they spoke to the FBI.
“”"I’ve never even visited their web site, and all I know about “what they did” is what JM posted here,”"”
Their website is defunct and hasn’t been updated in a year. AMC is not in 2007 a functioning organization. Its place has been taken by CAIR.
“”"I went through all this with Michelle back in 2004 when this all was discussed and resolved.”"”
Then tell the public what the resolution was. What did Michelle say about Gill?
Are people such sheep that if you tell them a higher-up has resolved a matter they just shrug and take the statement at face value?
“”"So for the record, I think it was wise for muslims after 9/11 to show caution when talking to the FBI. If a group told them to do so, that was good advice.”"”
Unbelievable. AMC told Moslems not to talk to the FBI. Charles keeps changing what the AMC said to “show caution.”
“”"Since there is absolutely zero evidence that the work Faisal did”"”
What work was that? I keep asking Faisal’s defenders to tell me what work Faisal did for the American Muslim Council, and they keep refusing to say.
“”"had anything to do with this subject,”"”
Great. What work did Faisal do for the American Muslim Council? Why are Faisal’s defenders so embarrassed by what Faisal did?
“”"it is all rather something I have no interest in, although if I was a Gill advisor which I’m not I’d suggest he set up a dinner interview with Michelle Malkin, answer all her questions, and see if he can get her on his side.”"”
Why not tell the public directly what Faisal Gill did for the American Muslim Council?
A constant theme of Charles’ defense of Faisal Gill is that we should let other people do our thinking for us. Michelle the PWC politician already resolved questions about Gill’s work for the AMC (no mention of how she allegedly did that) so don’t ask about it.
Get Michelle Malkin the columnist to talk to Faisal and let her decide.
This is a very strange way of dealing with the world. Many voters want to think for themselves, and to do that we need information. In this case, we need information about what Gill did for the American Muslim Council.
“”"I take no credit for any claims as to what any muslim organization actually did or didn’t do.”"”
No, Charles has repeatedly asserted that Gill’s employer the AMC merely told Moslems to be cautious when speaking to the AMC, and he did so in the above post, again.
Notice again how Gill’s defenders refuse to utter the phrases “American Muslim Council” and “Abdurahman Alamoudi.” Gill’s defenders are being obfuscatory.