"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)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Julie Lucas Kickoff
By Greg L | 3 March 2007 | 51st HOD District | 35 Comments
It’s a nice change to actually see a quality campaign effort in the 51st District this season. Julie Lucas has a flawless, well-attended kickoff that demonstrated wide support and showed off her thoroughly competent campaign organization. She is going to crush Faisal Gill if the attention to detail seen today carries through into June.
The event was at Westminster at Lake Ridge, and as soon as you turned off Old Bridge Road you saw Lucas’ yard signs about every one hundred feet with arrows directing you as necessary all the way to the facility. The event looked like it had been professionally staged, and the food was hardly the run-of-the mill campaign trail stuff — it was outstanding. I showed up about fifteen minutes early, and there was nothing left to do — no last-minute touches were required, and Lucas and her team were relaxed and prepared.
In attendance were Senator Jay O’Brien, Delegates Jeff Frederick, Jackson Miller and Michele McQuigg, Sheriff Glen Hill, Supervisors Marty Nohe and Mike May, School Board Members Milt Johns, Grant Lattin, Betty Covington, Michael Otagbe, and Lucy Beauchamp, and Soil & Water Chairman Steve Danziger. Also present were school board candidates Desi Arnaiz and Gil Trellum, and PWCRC Chairman Tom Kopko. In addition to myself providing media coverage, the mysterious Mitch Cumstein was apparently there as well (and has already posted his impressions of the event).
Delegate Jackson Miller emceed, and Betty Covington, Jay O’Brien and Jeff Frederick spoke along with Julie. Julie gave a strong speech which focused on transportation, education and fiscal responsibility. Her pedigree as a member of the school board clearly shows, and that might help round out a county delegation that doesn’t have particularly strong education credentials despite education being such a huge component of the state budget. She’s clearly a fiscal and social conservative, and gives a high-energy, positive and upbeat speech.
I think Julie is going to do very well, regardless of however her opponent may stumble, trip, fall, crash and burn on his own. While Faisal Gill is on the defensive and in some degree of disarray, Julie Lucas’ campaign is tight, focused, mistake-free and clearly well-regarded. This is definitely the candidate with all of the momentum.
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.
35 Comments
Views: 1566
Loading ...
Julie and her well coordinated campaign team ran the best Kick-Off event we’ve seen in Prince William. Her speakers and their endorsements were solid and her campaign speech was right on target. She clearly has her finger on the pulse of the 51st District. We’ve got a winner in Julie Lucas!
Last January Faisal cancelled his kick-off a day before it was scheduled to occur. So when is Faisal going to have his kick-off?
Julie is doing the rope-a-dope, and Gill hasn’t even made it into the ring yet. In fact, he is laying face down while PWCRC honchos who shall remain unnamed try and revive him. “You can do it, Faisal!” they say.
“I don’t know,” Faisal says. “I am feeling woozy and this cut above my eye is hurting pretty bad. And people keep attacking me from behind. It’s no fair. I want to go back to the American Muslim Council. What am I doing here?”
[…] O’Reilly in Virginia General Assembly, Prince William County Politics, 2007 Elections. trackback Greg L. and Mitch Cumstein both have excellent reports up from Julie Lucas’s campaign kick-off for […]
Jay O’Brien had a long day. He ducked his head in the Cuccinelli kick-off, too.
So hey, who are the Dems running in this race anyways?
The dems haven’t announced a candidate. They may be waiting to get a better handle on what this primary is going to look like. If Lucas has the advantage, I’ll be somewhat surprised if they find a candidate. If Gill seems to have the upper hand, they’re certainly going to come up with someone.
Hell, an independent would be a serious contender against Gill.
Chris,
Here’s the deal concerning the D’s in PWC. They are imploding much like Gill’s campaign. While Gill’s campaign is like the crew rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, the PWDP (Prince William Democratic Party) is on the verge of folding. That being said, if double D’s boy wins, then the Ds plan on getting a VERY good opponent because they know that Gill is NOT good for PWC. BUT, if Julie wins the convention (any lawyers out there want to go pro bono for Julie to count votes at the convention???) , as Jeff Frederick stated so well today, Julie has the ability to reach across the asile and ALWAYS has PWC’s interests in HER interest, then the 51st has NOTHING to worry about, at best they will put up a token candidate.
Julie is a uniter, not a divider. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans as of late are eating their own and all I see from the Gill camp is hatred. And why? Because like the little Dutch boy who filled the dike with his finger and then found 15 more holes, they KNOW they are fighting a losing battle and would rather bring the party down then admit the error of their ways.
Julie just cannot finance her own campaign. Her opponent has stated that he is willing to spend $100,000 of his own (?) money on this race. He THINKS he can buy it. Well, he may have bought some politicans support, but he CANNOT buy the voters in the 51st.
You don’t have to sell me on Lucas. She sounds outstanding. I just wish some of that PWC mojo could ride down Route 28 into Fairfax. We need it.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it rude and offensive when candidates use someone elses event to promote their own agenda?
At the Occoquan Convention Gill had signs with his name everywhere, then he greeted everyone as they entered the school so he could introduce himself as the candidate for Delegate, hand you HIS literature while his entourage tried slap a Gill for Delegate sticker you.
At Julie’s Kick off yesterday I swear I saw the Coles Supervisor, Nohe, asking people for signatures for something. He must have given her a really, really big check!
I’d love to see more about this supposed $100,000 Gill is pitching in to his own campaign - does anyone have a direct quote on that? This guy’s must be doing pretty well in his law practice to do that AND give over $12,000 to Bill Bolling.
Ohhhhhhhhhh, money is no object with faisal…you must have forgotten his roots….and former boss. There’s BIG money floatin’ around there…if they can funnel money to terrorist organizations, surely they could send a few crumbs faisal’s way, huh?
Skeptic,
What would Nohe be getting signatures for? Do the supervisors all need signatures to get on the ballot (I was unaware of that)? Could it have been the signatures for Lucas? She needs signatures. Of course, she needs signatures from her district — were there people there from the 51st? It seems most of the attendees listed are not from the 51st, although I have to believe there were some there.
So could it just have been getting signatures for Lucas, or do supervisors need signatures for their own re-election?
Charles-
As your first question– all candidates/incumbents running for office need signatures on a petition to get on the ballot each and every time. As for your statement ” It seems most of the attendees listed are not from the 51st, although I have to believe there were some there”, a majority of the room was from the 51st District.
Just my Thoughts-
“Is it just me or does anyone else find it rude and offensive when candidates use someone elses event to promote their own agenda? ”
Not, necessarily. Getting names for a petition would appear to be acceptable at another Republican event as long as it remained low profile and the person getting the signatures had permission from the candidate.
Now I have been to events were another campaign attempted to take over (probably not intentionally) an event or convention that was not for them. (Too many signs, literature, and ect., you get the point) To me this is totally classless. Most of the time I don’t think its intentional but it really reflects poorly on the campaign that does it. I think most reasonable people know the difference.
Thanks, Trent, for the info. I agree there’s nothing wrong with collecting your own signatures so long as you aren’t the person’s opponent — although I’m certain if Gill showed up at a someone else’s kickoff with petitions this site would cry foul, because it takes principle to use the same criteria for all candidates.
As to attendees, I can only comment on the attendees listed in the post, and they didn’t seem to be from the 51st. I also don’t believe all the listed people are actually Lucas supporters — they certainly aren’t listed on her web site as endorsers. Some obviously just attended to be there. I’m pretty sure a couple of them are actually supporting Gill, but at this point I’m just saying that attending doesn’t mean supporting.
I wasn’t able to make it to Julie’s kick-off. What did she say that maker her socially conserative?
Has she spoken out agaisnt gay marriage?
Has she stated clearly that she’s 100% pro-life?
Or is she dodging those issues?
Just curious.
“”"Has she stated clearly that she’s 100% pro-life?”"”
You cannot be pro-life if you lobbied for a group that told Moslems not to talk to the FBI as the FBI sought help in solving 9-11.
You cannot be pro-life if you lobbied for a group that supported Hamas suicide bombings in Israel.
You cannot be pro-life if you were the chief lobbyist for a now-defunct Libyan-funded group the American Muslim Council. The AMCs founder and leader is now serving a 23-year prison sentence.
You cannot be pro-life if you were the Director, Government Relations, of the American Muslim Council.
You cannot be pro-life if you are Faisal Gill.
Lucas is a good candidate and a tough one for Dems to take on. Still this is a district that went for Kaine, Byrne, and Webb. the Dems can’t be counted out, even if their leadership is in disaray in PWC.
Bob,
As a member of the schoolboard, she has no place to speak out against Gay marriage or any other hot-button issue. Anyone who KNOWS Ms. Lucas can attest to her being a true conservative, anyone who thinks otherwise either has their head in the sand or does not follow-PWC politics. Why don’t you look at her website? Why don’t you e-mail her, call her, approach her at a function or just on the street and ask her?
Ms. Lucas has been one of the most approachable politicans in recent memory. She does not give the “politically correct” answer, she tells it like it is. Maybe THAT is why she has such support around the state and has been recognized as a leader in Virginia politics.
Faisal stated that he plans on running as a Conservative. This troubles me because he was speaking to an audience made up of mostly Conservatives. So, if he was speaking in front of a more moderate group of voters, would he be running as a McCain moderate???
I WAS at Ms. Lucas’ kick-off, which was very well attended, considering it was a BEAUTIFUL day and there were many other events going on at the same time. I did see someone, though, getting QUITE upset about 2 people with forms seeking signatures. This person was in bluejeans and sandals. Instead of running and crying to Tom Kopko like he did, my question is, why did he not just ask Ms. Lucas if she had a problem with it?
School board votes may not give a lot of indication of her views on social issues or fiscal issues, since the school board essentially spends all the money given them from the PWC board through the 56% rule, plus whatever they can get from the state and other direct money.
It will be interesting to see how she votes on this year’s budget, for example will she take the approach urged by a recent letter-to-the-editor and support a budget that asks the PWC supervisors to raise the tax rate to provide more money. I’m betting she won’t support that approach.
“This person was in bluejeans and sandals.”
Lemme guess…Steve Chapman?
Responding to various comments above:
I hate to correct my friend Trent Barton, but his response was not fully accurate. The only candidates in Virginia who need to get petition signatures are those running either in a state-run primary or those filing as independents for the Fall ballot. Candidates nominated by convention, firehouse primary (canvass), or mass meeting (caucus) need do nothing but meet the party requirements (usually nothing more than a written statement of candidacy and perhaps a filing fee of the party’s choice) by the party-imposed deadline.
Because Marty is running in a primary, he needs to actually qualify, under the law, for the primary ballot. This would be true whether he were contested for the nomination or not. The same is true of all the Republican Supervisors who are running for re-election in Prince William this year, since each Republican incumbent is running in a state-run primary. However, in Woodbridge, there will be no Republican primary for Supervisor, so Chris Royse does not need to get any petition signatures this year at all.
As to whether or not it’s classless for one candidate to collect primary petition signatures at another candidate’s event, this is mostly a political matter. I’ve seen more than one candidate event where the guest of honor (the candidate) warmly introduces other candidates in the room and emphatically invites everyone in the room to sign each other candidate’s petitions. I’ve also seen free riders mooch off events without clearing it with the hosts. To know which circumstance was witnessed at Julie’s event, one would have to know more of the facts.
Finally, regarding whether School Board Members have an opportunity to weigh in on social issues, the answer is an unequivocal yes. School Boards across America deal with issues such as how to enforce non-discrimination policies in the case of gay students. School Boards often confront whether to allow family planning facilities in schools, or whether to allow school nurses to make family planning referrals. School Boards approve sex education curriculae, and whether to implement such curriculae with opt-in versus opt-out mechanisms. If the School Board chooses to make the sex-ed curriculum opt-out, the Board then oversees/implements policies to facilitate parents’ exercising their opt-out rights. Is it easy or difficult to opt out? Are parents fully advised at the beginning of the school year they can opt out? Are parents who choose to opt out given short shrift by principles and school administration personnel when seeking to exercise their option? School Boards decide what books to approve for other courses touching on social agendas, such as history text books. What does a school system teach about civil rights, racism, feminism, the gay rights movement? In social studies, what does a school system teach its pupils about families headed by same-sex couples? I could go on even more, but I think it’s inescapably clear — School Boards all over the country vote on very hot social issues all the time.
I haven’t followed Julie’s votes closely on the School Board, and I’m not going to weigh in on how conservative she is based on my lack of facts. That would be grossly unfair to her or any candidate. But it’s also foolish and naïve to pretend School Boards don’t play a role in controversial social issues. They’ve been doing it for decades.
What is fair is for anyone interested in Julie’s and Faisal’s views to ask each one directly. Compare Julie’s statements with any verifiable public data (votes cast, letters signed, resolutions proposed, candidates supported, etc.) I am supporting Faisal because I believe him to be a social and a fiscal conservative and because he asked for my support before the 2006 elections, at a time I had not remotely heard Julie was going to be entering the race. So my decision was never a reflection on Julie. I hope my candidate wins, but I also hope EVERYONE gives BOTH candidates a fair shake, asks tough but fair questions, and makes up his/her own mind based on the positions taken by the candidates. As I said, it’s also fair to review any public official’s voting record. When I served on the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District Board (1991-1999) in Fairfax County, I cast several hundred votes. There might be a couple I might take back, but I never claimed someone was out of line holding me accountable for every one I cast. I’m sure Julie believes the same.
You can also tell where a candidate’s philosophy lies by who they choose to support.
I understand that Julie supported tax-hiking Jack Rollison over then conservative challenger Jeff Frederick. She supported moderate Buck Waters over Scott Lingamfelter. She supported Sean Connaughton over Conservative Lt. Governor Bill Bolling.
Her actions don’t seem to be in line with real conservative views as some claim in the posts.
“”" I believe him to be a social and a fiscal conservative”"”
Only radicals work for terrorists. Conservatives don’t.
Please investigate Faisal’s work as the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council in 2001. This was a group which told Moslems in the aftermath of 9-11 not to talk to the FBI.
The AMC was a terrorist-supporting group. The founder and leader of the AMC in 2001, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is now in jail for terrorist money-laundering. In 2000 Alamoudi spoke in front fo the White House in praise of Hezbollah and Hamas.
David-
It is good to hear from you. You offered a good explanation for the process and answering the school board weighing in on conservative matters. However, I think you misread my statement. It was “all candidates/incumbents running for office need signatures on a petition to get on the “ballot” each and every time”. As you see only primaries are covered by my statement since they are the only means that there is an “official ballot” at the precinct polling locations. Furthermore, petitions are usually only used in primaries and final elections (for non-partisans). The other nominating methods don’t have official ballots as the Registrar defines as a ballot. They mostly have profiled delegate’s applications (for conventions) and a vote is taken by the convention attendees.
BTW, the person was collecting for Marty Nohe’s requirement for his primary in collecting the signatures. I hope I clarified my statement.
Just My Thoughts-
Bob,
Let’s see here, she supported Jack Rollison over Jeff Frederick? Ok, fine, but what were her actions the moment Jeff won the nomination? She worked tirelessly for Jeff and he thanks her by endorsing her for Delegate for the 51st District. As far as Sean Connaughton, you must not be aware that it was Bolling who came to Julie’s fund-raiser to introduce Gov Gilmore at her joint fundrasier in 2003 with Sen. Jay O’Brien and Cory Stewart.
As far as where she stands on social issues, I know that she fully supported implementing absence programs in PWC schools, was active in the process of reviewing textbooks for the schools, and fully supported changing the Division’s policy to allow home-schooled and private school students to attend up to 2 credit bearing courses (which can be verified on her website, www.votejulielucas.com) per semester.
And, according to the the Family Alliance, Julie DID support the marriage amendment. As I have stated time and again, not only is HER record public record, but you (read, “anyone”) can ask her any question on policy and I am sure she will be happy to answer.
John,
It’s one thing to support the marriage amendment. It’s another thing to actually do something in support of the marrige amendement.
I don’t know if Julie actually did anything to show her support. Perhaps you could share some things she did to support it.
As for Mr. Gill, I know that he went to the into the People’s Republic of Alexandria and debated Delegate Ebbin in front of the Women League of Voters. You may recall that Mr. Delegate Ebbin is a big supporter of gay rights and the Women League of Voters is no friend to conservatives.
Mr. Gill also went around the county talking about the marriage amendment on behalf of the Family Alliance. He even manned the marriage booth at the county fair.
If Julie has done something to show her support on the marriage amendment, besides stating that she’s for the marriage amendment, I’m all ears.
Then perhaps we can call this topic a tie.
“”"As for Mr. Gill, I know that he went to the into the People’s Republic of Alexandria and debated Delegate Ebbin in front of the Women League of Voters.”"”
Suicide bombings destroy traditional marriages by killing one or both parties to the traditional marriage.
In 2001 Mr. Gill was the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council and also lobbied for the Islamic Institute. In that capacity Mr. Gill went to the White House and demanded that the White House admit the son of the imprisoned terrorist Sami Al-Arian to a meeting.
When the White House refused Gill and the other attendees at the meeting walked out. You can read about Gill’s walkout at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/83/story_8311.html
Gill’s Islamic Institute then signed a statement accusing the White House of trying to determine who the leaders of the Muslim community are.
Sami Al-Arian is in jail after being convicted of providing illegal services to the Islamic Jihad, which has carried out suicide bombings in Israel as recently as this year.
Bob,
I don’t know if Ms. Lucas was ever asked to speak with regard to this issue, but I do know she campaigned door-to-door for the Marriage Amendment and on election day took on Democrat poll workers with this issue AND helped correct misinformation that was being said by Democrats about the amendment. She worked the polls all day and, just so you know, the Marriage Amendment passed in her district (THE most Democratic district in the county). Here is the breakdown by Precinct: Dale 58.3%, Neabsco 60.2%, Civic Center 61%, Enterprise 61.8%, Kerrydale 62.8%, Godwin 64.2%, Bel-Air 66%, Minnieville 67.2%. As you can see the Marriage Amendment passed in 5 of the 8 precincts in her district with a larger percentage than it did in the county as a whole, 61.68%. Oh, and this was IN ADDITION TO her time spent serving on the School Board AND earning a living. I think it says a lot when an elected official takes time to campaign for a cause they believe in.
The “Marraige Amendment” is only one issue, and it successfully passed. Perhaps you should compare current issues and determine which candidate is offering mere rhetoric, and which one is actually offering potential solutions with real world experience in successfully attaining her goals.
In response to several posts:
John Light,
Thank you for sharing some examples of how Julie stood up for our shared values in traditional marriage. I agree with you, that it does say a lot when a people (whether they are an elected official or not) takes time to campaign for a cause they believe in.
AWCheny,
You’re right. The Marriage Amendment is only one issue and it did successfully pass. It’s good to know that our two republican candidates were on top of the issue so that we can make a better judgment about how they will vote in future offices that they may be elected to.
As for current issues, yes, let’s discuss them. For me, traditional marriage is not a done and over with issue. There is potential for left wing courts to try to legislate from the bench and impose gay lifestyles on Virginians. So we must stay vigilant. Therefore, in my opinion is that the traditional marriage issue is still
current.
So what other current issues would you like to discuss?
Jonathan Mark,
I do not know how seriously I should take your posts. You seem to state things that in my opinion are not represented accurately of said events.
I read the article you linked to in your most recent post. (The link is copied here: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/83/story_8311.html)
In your post you state: “In that capacity Mr. Gill went to the White House and demanded that the White House admit the son of the imprisoned terrorist Sami Al-Arian to a meeting.” I read the link that you posted.
The article on beliefnet.com didn’t state that Mr. Gill demanded that the White House admit the son an imprisoned terrorist.
The articles states: that “Abdullah Al-Arian, a college intern in the office of Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich was asked to leave by the Secret Service. So he was already admitted into the White House.
Mr. Gill and his colleagues chose to leave after one in their party was asked to leave after being admitted. I think any reasonably minded person who believed in a good cause and was treated this way would have done them same thing.
What’s even more important is that the article continues with this: the “White House security gave security clearance for Abdullah Al-Arian before the meeting began, and likewise last week raised no objections when the elder [father] Al-Arian visited the White House with several other Muslim leaders for a briefing planned with Vice President Dick Cheney at which the vice president did not show up.”
So being asked to leave after already being given a security clearance a week in advance and when you Dad can get into the White House but you can’t, would make me a little peeved, too.
The article goes on to state that “About 45 minutes after everybody left and people were standing outside talking to the media, the Secret Service did come out and say that they removed the flag from Abdullah’s name and if [they] wanted to [they] could all go back in and talk, but [the group] decided to take a pass on that.”
So your remarks do not represent what was stated in the article.
I think readers of BVBL should be wary of your comments and not give them much credit. You have not represented the article accurately. It makes me wonder what other things you have distorted in your other posts.
And finally, Mr. Gill has done nothing wrong or harmed our country. Below is a link that states the Deparment of Homeland Security’s findings on Mr. Gill’s pervious emplyoment that was called into question: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128826,00.html
I hope we can put to bed the idea that Mr. Gill is not a red, white, and true blue American.
Well Bob, one thing that perplexes me is that a variety of sources have been cited here in previous posts raising questions about Mr. Gill’s associations, to which he will not respond, but his apologists have only been able to cite one…Fox News. Now what’s with that?
That question, btw, is a legitate one, and not an attempt to be suggestive. I, if I lived in that district, would not support Gill for a multitude of other reasons. I’ve seen him in action, first at the PWC convention four years ago when he chaired a credentials committee that was totally unprepared and chaotic. In observations of his skills on numerous occasions since, he has not impressed me in the least. Julie, on the other hand, has. The fact that Faisal Gill potentially carries other baggage only serves to reinforce that opinion.
“”"So your remarks do not represent what was stated in the article.”"”
Read the article. Ready what I wrote and what the article states, and observe whether my remarks were absolutely one hundred percent true. Gill demanded that the White House admit Abdullah Arian to a meeting in the White House. The White House refused. Gill walked out.
That happened. If you are okay with it then fine. But don’t deny it happened.
“”"I think readers of BVBL should be wary of your comments and not give them much credit.”"”
I think that readers of BVBL should give me a fair hearing, as you did. You read the article I linked to and for that I thank you.
“”"You have not represented the article accurately.”"”
I did, as stated above.
“”"It makes me wonder what other things you have distorted in your other posts.”"”
Distorted is in the eye of the beholder. What I wrote was factual. I try and provide links the first time I make an allegation. I will provide more links, since people read them. Again, I thank you for hearing me out.
“”"And finally, Mr. Gill has done nothing wrong”"”
It was wrong for Gill to serve as the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council, an in-part Libyan funded extremist group founded and headed by the now-imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.
“”"or harmed our country.”"”
It is merely necessary to show that Gill acted wrongly in providing services to the American Muslim Council, whose leader sought to harm our country. It is not necessary to show that in his mind Gill intended to harm our country. He did not intend to do so.
“”"Below is a link that states the Department of Homeland Security’s findings on Mr. Gill’s previous employment that was called into question: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128826,00.html“”"
The most exculpatory passage from the DHSs statement is:
“”"There were no potential conflicts or inappropriate activities in relation to Mr. Gill…Mr. Gill exceeded all requirements set forth by the department office of security for access to classified information as prescribed by the intelligence community that allows him to conduct his day-to-day duties for the department.”"”
I have never alleged that Gill was a security risk. I have never alleged that Gill violated the law in filling out his employment forms.
I allege that Gill acted wrongly in serving as the chief lobbyist in 2001 for a group which told Muslims after 9-11 not to talk to the FBI, whose founder and leader stated before a cheering crowd in 2000 that he was a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, etc.
The standards for public office are different from, and hopefully higher than, the standards for holding a security clearance. Presumably most readers of BVBL voted against Jim Webb, John Kerry and Al Gore, all of whom had access to classified information while in the military and afterwards.
“”"I hope we can put to bed the idea that Mr. Gill is not a red, white, and true blue American.”"”
Gill did not choose to be born in a foreign country, and no one should hold that for or against him. As the grandson of immigrants I have never claimed that Mr. Gill’s nationality is different from mine in any way. Rather, I allege that in 2001 Gill was the chief lobbyist for a pro-terrorist group the American Muslim Council.
I question, over and over again, Gill’s work for the American Muslim Council and his former employment by and current law partnership with sharia-law-in -the-USA advocate Asim Ghafoor.
Jonathan, you write “I have never alleged that Gill was a security risk.” Ok, then, I will. Back in the 1980s, I was approached, while a cadet at The Citadel, of becoming a member of the John Birch Society. After I heard them out, I approached one of the military officers on staff and told him what had happend. He informed me that if I was to join them, I would more than likely NOT be able to obtain a security clearance.
Ok then, here is an organization that while yes, it is just a “wee bit” to the Right (lol), it is vehemently anti-Communist. Last time I checked, we were against the Commies back in the 80s (since electing and re-electing Bill C and wife, no longer sure). Mr. Gill, on the other hand, was an active participant in an organization whose interests pose a threat to the US Government (please read http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6146).
One last question. Seriously, I do not know the answer to this one. In Mr. Gill’s book that he sent to voters, he can be seen wearing his uniform. Yes the Navy’s standards are not as high as the Marines or Army (wink). Anyways, my question is, because he is currently serving and on drill weekends is considered on Active Duty, is he not in violation of the Hatch Act for wearing said uniform???
Ok, a bit of a follow-up to my question above. This from:
http://www.fvap.gov/vao/2006policy.html
“ALL MILITARY PERSONNEL, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES, ARE PROHIBITED FROM WEARING MILITARY UNIFORMS AT POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION EVENTS.”
“13. PUBLIC COMMENTARY BY MILITARY PERSONNEL. ALL MILITARY PERSONNEL, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES, ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY MAY NOT ENGAGE IN PUBLIC COMMENTARY, INCLUDING SPEECHES AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OFFERED FOR PUBLICATION, CONCERNING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OR ELECTIONS ABSENT PRIOR CLEARANCE. REFS. B, E, F, O, AND P PERTAIN.”
“14. POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION LITERATURE. MILITARY PERSONNEL, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES, SHALL NOT DISTRIBUTE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION LITERATURE WHILE IN UNIFORM, WHILE ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, OR WHILE ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION.
INSTALLATION COMMANDERS WILL ONLY ALLOW DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION LITERATURE ON INSTALLATIONS AS AUTHORIZED BY MILITARY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS.”
Seems pretty clear to me, at least.