“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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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-

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.

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 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.

Lemme guess…Steve Chapman?

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.

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?

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.