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

Guest Post Opportunity

By Greg L | 29 March 2007 | 51st HOD District | 48 Comments

I had intended to show up at the Faisal Gill kickoff, but due to family obligations I can’t break away on Saturday to cover the event.  If any readers out there would like an opportunity to cover this and do a guest post, or simply provide a report on the event, let me know.  It’s going to be at the American Legion at 3640 Friendly Post Lane in Woodbridge this Saturday between 11AM and 2PM.  If you can cover this, an audio recorder and camera would be good to bring if you have them.



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.

48 Comments

  1. Loudoun Insider said on 29 Mar 2007 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Any word on which politicians are showing up?

  2. Greg L said on 29 Mar 2007 at 11:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    The publicly announced endorsees are supposed to be there: Bolling, Cucinelli, Lingamfelter and Stewart.

  3. freedom said on 30 Mar 2007 at 6:10 am:
    Flag comment

    …and if you read this mornings (Friday) Potomac News, “homeland security” is one of Faisal’s key campaign points. sigh…:(

  4. Anonymous said on 30 Mar 2007 at 7:50 am:
    Flag comment

    If Stewart shows up, he just continues to prove to be the bumbling idiot we all new him too be.

  5. Not Eric Cartman said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:45 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ll be there searching for snukes…

  6. Anonymous said on 30 Mar 2007 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    First we elect Faisal “Hussein” Gill to the House of Delegates, and next thing you know the crescent flag is going to be flying over the General Assembly and the Virginia motto is going to be changed from “Sic Semper Tyrannis” to “In Muhammed We Trust.” It’s a slippery slope, folks!!

  7. Jonathan Mark said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    I plan to be there. Will Gill admit us if he knows who we are?

  8. charles said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, freedom, since he was a solid performer working for the Homeland Security department, and an honored member of the armed services of our country, I think Homeland Security is something he hasn’t just talked about.

    In fact, when he was questioned by right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin, he could have just given up and gone into a lucrative private practice. But he endured the unsubstantiated charges against him because he wanted to make a difference, he wanted to serve our country and keep us safe from those who would harm us. And when he was cleared of the charges, he stayed and worked to protect all of us.

    As a non-native citizen, he may have a greater appreciation for what our freedom and liberty and security means. As a member of a national administration, he has experience that will be welcome to bring to the House of Delegates. As a member of the reserves, he brings a military mindset and an appreciation for the hard work our service men and women perform in protecting our country, and he sees firsthand how some people mistreat our military and trivialize their service.

    As a lawyer, well, he can’t be all good now, can he :-)

    My apologies to any lawyers reading. I’m still cracking up over Bush’s lawyer joke at the press club dinner. (rough quote) You know you’ve screwed up when people take the side of the lawyers”.

    Look forward to hearing who shows up for the event. It will be interesting.

  9. Not Eric Cartman said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon, 3:06, funny you should mention the crescent flag. Take a look at Gill’s campaign logo on his web site. There is a star over the “i” that is positioned right next to the “G”. Together, it looks like the crescent and star muslim symbol.

    http://www.faisalgill.com/images/logo.gif

    http://islam.about.com/library/graphics/starmoon_yellow.gif

  10. Jonathan Mark said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"I think Homeland Security is something he hasn’t just talked about. “”"

    No, being the chief lobbyist for imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council is something that Faisal just hasn’t talked about.

  11. Greg L said on 30 Mar 2007 at 8:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, a “solid performer”? Like he was when he was in charge of the Occoquan convention that nominated Mike May, and where delegate check-in and processing dragged on for hours? And which he used as a venue to promote his candidacy while promoting an endorsement he did not have? Or a “solid performer” when as Vice-Chair of the PWCRC meeting he failed to attend meetings, failed to effectively manage the labor day picnic, and did nothing but coast in the position? Or perhaps a “solid performer” as chairman of the Family alliance, where they have a defunct website, haven’t held a meeting in months, and by all appearances have folded out of neglect. Or, best of all, his “solid performance” on the Steve Chapman campaign where as spokesman for the campaign told the Manassas Journal-Messenger that a blog distracted the campaign and they forgot to file for the 2006 50th District Convention.

    I can only imagine what sort of “solid performer” he was as a political appointee and policy advisor to the Department of Homeland security, despite having no background in security whatsoever. His “solid performance” I hope was a tendency to not show up for work.

    His great appreciation for our freedom and liberty, aside from his rhetoric, is proven in his actions. In working for an open supporter of Hamas and a now convicted terrorist, his long-term association with law partner Asim Ghafoor, who advocates imposing Sharia law on America, as well as his new law partner Todd Gallinger who has worked for the IIRO, a “charity” with links to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, and his protests in support of relatives of Sami Al-Arian, another convicted terrorist, I think most would think he may be terribly out of step with actual American notions of freedom and liberty.

    His “military mindset” also is telling. In clearly failing to adhere to Navy standards of physical fitness and using his uniform as a campaign prop in his literature in contravention of DoD regulations, the fact that he is currently under investigation by the Judge Advocate General is evidence that whatever mindset he may have is unlikely to have much to do with the values and traditions of military service. He is a disgrace to his uniform.

    He’s a hard worker, as long as the product of that work benefits him. As a delegate, he would be a disaster. As a Republican, he is the strongest advertisement for Democratic candidates they could ever hope for.

  12. Loudoun Insider said on 30 Mar 2007 at 9:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Whereas I was once somewhat on the fence in the Bolling v. McDonnell potential guv race, Bolling’s ties to Gill have sent me totally over to McDonnell. It seems so perplexing for Bolling to line up behind this guy, but I guess Gill gave Bolling over 12,000 reasons to support him.

  13. charles said on 30 Mar 2007 at 10:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    In clearly failing to adhere to Navy standards of physical fitness

    The is false and libelous. Yes, I know that for a fact. You’d know that if you bothered to check ANY of your facts.

    and using his uniform as a campaign prop in his literature in contravention of DoD regulations,

    It is not in contravention of regulations, as evidenced by a reading of the regulations and a discussion with a military lawyer. The use of historical pictures in campaigns is widespread, even among people still in the reserves, as I clearly pointed out to you, giving you an example on the national level (which I presume you ignored and file no charges about even though it was a democrat congressman).

    the fact that he is currently under investigation by the Judge Advocate General

    The only indication we have of any investigation is the statement of a blogger who is being sued for making false charges, who falsely calls Gill a terrorist, and who falsely claims Gill cannot pass his physical. If you have a PDF or a JPEG image of the official notification of an investigation, post it.

    My guess is that the “investigation” is simply a JAG having to check into frivolous charges out of the abundance of caution, just as some other poor guy had to waste his time “investigating” the false claims of malfeasance made against Gill’s law firm.

    is evidence that whatever mindset he may have is unlikely to have much to do with the values and traditions of military service. He is a disgrace to his uniform.

    Greg, your attacks on a member of our armed forces are disgusting. I wish I could say they were beneath you. Gill has served our country in the military, and in civilian service, and your baseless attacks on him as a “disgrace to his uniform” are contemptable.

    I wish you were not being sued. I think that’s the wrong way to handle people who make things up about you. But being sued does not give you carte blanche to attack members of our military, even those who are the lawyer who is suing you.

  14. Greg L said on 30 Mar 2007 at 10:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    By simple observation he exceeds Navy height and weight requirements as I have documented before. This can’t be libelous if it is the truth.

    Regardless of your discussions with a military lawyer, I have information from the Standards of Conduct and Government Ethics Branch of the Administrative Law Division within the Office of the Judge Advocate General that indicates that Faisal Gill’s behavior is in contravention of DoDI 1334.10 and that they have opened an investigation into this matter.

    My observations on a member of the armed forces are based on the fact that I am a decorated veteran of the armed forces myself who cannot countenance someone tarnishing the honor and reputation of the armed forces in furtherance of their own personal agenda. I have every right, as does any citizen to criticize the behavior of members of the armed forces when they engage in behavior that is improper. Just because he can don a uniform to look respectable in a campaign flyer doesn’t mean mere mortals like myself are not permitted to point out that his actions are disgraceful, wrong, and reflect badly on the armed services. You, who has never served, seem to have some bizarre belief that those who serve are above criticism, which you never seemed to apply to others who have served such as Jim Webb or John Kerry. Your selective outrage is pathetic.

    I do in fact have carte blanche to “attack” members of the military. You do, too. That’s part of what this “freedom thing” is, and why we don’t have titles of nobility in this country. Otherwise, your attacks on me, being a veteran, would be considered wrongful.

    You’re trying awfully hard to fight this, and getting progressively more inane.

  15. charles said on 30 Mar 2007 at 11:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    By simple observation he exceeds Navy height and weight requirements as I have documented before. This can’t be libelous if it is the truth.

    But it is false, and therefore libelous. You do know that the carnival roadies who guess people’s weight are not scientifically accurate, right?

    You did not observe him standing on a scale and read his weight. You are stating as fact something you did NOT observe. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and say “nayh nayh I can’t hear you” doesn’t mean you can make false statements.

    You have “documented” nothing, except your statements. You have no evidence, you’ve been told the facts, the facts are also self-evident if you thought about it for more than a second, and maybe that’s why you aren’t thinking about it, because it would ruin the fun.

    Why didn’t you take a minute to ask Gill about ANY of the charges you are making against him? Are you prohibited from talking to him because he is opposing counsel? Maybe I have been unfair in complaining about you not talking to Gill, I hadn’t thought about the “not talking without your lawyer” aspect.

    If you’d like, I’ll pass on any questions you might have if you really want the facts, rather than just wanting to make unsubstantiated claims.

    BTW, does your response mean that you will not post a pdf or jpeg image of this “letter” that says he is under investigation?

  16. charles said on 30 Mar 2007 at 11:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    I just thought of something else. In this so-called “report” you have, is it based on the false claims people have made here about him dressing up in uniform to perform campaign activities? We know that you can’t campaign in uniform.

    Maybe the “investigation” would be nothing more than asking Gill if the pictures were taken as part of a campaign. The answer to that question is no, so if that is the “investigation” it won’t take more than a minute.

    Greg, did you ever think to ask Gill to show you the source for those pictures before you falsely charged him with taking them for the campaign? Or would asking ruin your fun?

    I apologize for the somewhat personal tone I took in an earlier post. I’m pretty ticked at attacks on a fine member of our military, but I don’t mean to lash back personally, other than to call out your behavior in the way I see it. Your behavior is what I mean to discuss, not you personally.

  17. Jonathan Mark said on 30 Mar 2007 at 11:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    What I want to know is, will Gill attempt to stop outsiders from hearing what Cooch, Bolling, Lingamfelter and Stewart say?

    Because if Cooch, Bolling, Stewart and Lingamfelter want to endorse Gill then they ought to be proud of it. They ought to want everyone to know about their praise of the former chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.

    Cooch et all ought to be willing to speak about Gill’s work for or on behalf of Alamoudi and why it doesn’t bother Cooch. Bolling should speak about Gill’s American Muslim Council telling Moslems after 9-11 not to talk to the FBI.

    I hope that Gill’s endorsers will pose for pictures with Gill and release them to the public. I am particularly interested in Cooch and Bolling, because those two operate outside of PWC where Gill or his backers have not bought off the local leadership.

    I hope that anyone who has a video camera will bring it. Don’t let Cooch, Bolling, Lingamfelter and Stewart hide behind closed doors while they endorse Gill. Let’s get it all on record.

  18. Greg L said on 31 Mar 2007 at 12:26 am:
    Flag comment

    charles, are you asserting that Faisal Gill weighs 186 pounds or less as Navy Height and Weight standards require? They guy has two chins, for goodness sake! Having been responsible for weigh-ins in the past, I can assert with great confidence that Faisal Gill weighs more than 186 pounds, and therefore violates the standard. If Gill wishes to sue me for libel and prove that he weighs 186 pounds or less, he is welcome to do so.

  19. Greg L said on 31 Mar 2007 at 12:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles, on your second point in which you say that the pictures of Faisal Gill were not expressly taken for the purpose of producing campaign mailers, my opinion is that they were, which is based on their composition, how they were used, and that there were multiple pictures apparently taken at the same time. I believe my conclusions are reasonable and fit the circumstances better than your assertion that someone happened to recently take multiple high-quality professional-quality photographs of Gill with his children and they just happened, by coincidence, to be useful in a campaign mailer. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.

    Regardless, according to the OJAG it is against regulation for Gill to be the primary or only person in uniform in a picture used for political purposes. Even if he didn’t take those pictures expressly for campaign purposes, using them regardless of the purpose in which they were taken for campaign purposes is a violation.

    And no, I am not going to compromise a confidential source by posting a screenshot of the emails I was forwarded. If you want your evidence, spend some time and effort to dig it out yourself instead of playing sock puppet for Faisal Gill.

  20. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Mar 2007 at 6:46 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"BVBL: By simple observation he exceeds Navy height and weight requirements as I have documented before. This can’t be libelous if it is the truth.

    Charles: But it is false, and therefore libelous.”"”

    Gill’s supporters cannot even bring themselves to believe that Faisal (as of the present moment) is obese. It is reasonable to think that Gill’s supporters will also refuse to believe that Faisal was the lobbyist for a terrorist’s (Abdurahman Alamoudi’s) organization.

    Unfortunately I have seen this before, among supporters of U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) here in the 8th District. Moran’s supporters will make up lies just to get you to go away. They could care less.

    In both cases the machine supporter thinks that if you don’t support the machine candidate then you are the one with the problem, and it is okay to lie to you.

  21. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 4:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg knows that there are regular physical inspections. Faisal has passed all those inspections. He has met the qualifications at each inspection. Whatever the requirements are for his reserve officer position, he currently meets those requirements.

    I couldn’t tell you how much anybody weighs. I can say that Gill is in the reserves, and has not failed his inspections which include the items that Greg insists Gill would fail.

    This is a lot like Greg saying he “knew” Chapman hadn’t graduated simply because Greg hadn’t seen the diploma. How did that work out for you, Greg?

    BTW, Greg, maybe you don’t have any letters that show this “inspection” you claim is happening, and that is why you won’t post them. I really want to believe SOMETHING you say, so tell you what:

    e-mail me the name and phone number of the JAG who was willing to state publicly to you that there was an investigation. I will call him, tell him I am your friend, and if he confirms to me your claims, I will come back here and report that.

    Greg, you know me to be fastidious in my desire for the truth. I’ve been quite willing to admit when I have been in error, and will do so again.

    So, I’m waiting. If there is a name, send it to me. Prove me wrong.

  22. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 4:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan,
    I looked for you and your protesters at the meeting. I’ll have pictures of that large group of people you were sending to make your point up later tonight. It was quite impressive, in the way a protest of nobody can be.

    I saw nobody turned down. I told several politicians about all the charges made here, just to see if I could get them to change their mind, but no luck. Grover Norquist found the whole thing interesting.

    I might get a report up later tonight, but I want to go back through all the speeches (Lingamfelter was wonderful, as always, as were all the other speeches). Citizen Tom might beat me to the punch, which would be great, so if you want to know, check over there.

    Biggest surprise? Michelle McQuigg. No, she’s not endorsing anybody, and like all the politicians said she would support whoever won the convention. But, she said she is voting for Faisal Gill. She was on the stage sitting next to him, and didn’t seem worried that his “terrorist” genes might rub off on her.

    There were over 100 people there. I counted 6 times, in case someone tells you differently.

    Anyway, to be serious (not that John and Greg have been), the politicians endorsing Gill are not doing it from ignorance, but from intimate knowledge and long relationships — and it’s insulting to them to suggest they would provide endorsements casually or ignorantly. Each of their speeches provided ample reasons to support Gill in this election.

  23. Greg L said on 31 Mar 2007 at 4:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    I know that there is a requirement for regular weigh-ins and physical fitness tests. I also know that the burdens that officer have can often take precedence over participation, and it’s not unusual to have some become creative with their schedules to the point that these become deferred long beyond what would seem reasonable. I don’t have any idea whether this is the case with Faisal Gill, but my experience tells me that enforcement of standards can vary widely based on the commander and I am extremely reluctant to accept that the command structure is universally perfect in this regard when my eyes so clearly demonstrate otherwise.

    While you’re at it charles, how about you prove that I said that Chapman didn’t graduate from high school. If you’re so fastidious with the truth, you might want to be a little more careful with it before spreading lies about me. Since you’re so eager to spread lies about my behavior, I doubt you have tremendous credibility regarding Faisal Gill’s. Actually, on the Faisal Gill matters you’ve yet to say anything which has proven to be correct.

  24. CONVA said on 31 Mar 2007 at 4:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Read Paul Sperry’s “Infiltration”, pages 295-300 (with foot notes). In fact read the entire book to develop an understanding of the situation we find ourselves in.

  25. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Mar 2007 at 8:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Were Cooch and Bolling there? What did they say?

  26. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 9:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Faisal has met his regularly scheduled obligations. I thought I said that.

    Since the entire old BVBL was deleted by the original BVBL, whoever that was, we have no record anymore online of the charges made against Chapman.

    You also know, or should know, that Steve’s campaign never marched on Harry’s office. You know the charges against Faisel in 2004 were dismissed, you know the baseless charges against his law firm were thrown out, you have been told that the pictures you said were professional campaign pictures were not, and that Faisal is passing his regularly scheduled physicals, notwithstanding your supposedly infallable ability to judge people’s height and weight.

    You have acknowledge that Faisal is not a terrorist as your headlines claimed, and that Faisal has never called for “jihad” as your pictures claim. The only time you are remotely accurate about Faisal is when you discuss actual issues regarding the campaign and qualifications, something I’d rather was the focus of attention than these baseless charges.

    As to saying things that have “proven” to be correct, I am satisfied that the facts are as I have stated, although since I am not Faisal Gill I cannot “prove” that the pictures were his family pictures, or provide the records for his regularly scheduled physicals. I suppose I could bother the man to actually SHOW me the timestamps on his family pictures, or maybe we should go “Jack Bauer” on his wife to get the truth out of them.

    But given Faisal’s long history of service to the members of our party, and their stellar character references for him that I heard at the meeting today, I have absolutely no reason to believe Faisal is lying to me about these trivialities, especially in the face of absolutely NO evidence to the contrary.

    BTW, I think I pointed out to you that, while I’m not a professional photographer, we can all agree that a professional would never have taken a picture like the one on the front of his flyer, where his hat is casting a shadow over the top half of his face.

    A professional would have provided back and underlighting to ensure the face was brought out. I’ve been through a professional photo shoot outside before, and the setup included multiple lights and reflectors to ensure the pictures didn’t have shadows.

    If there really is a JAG investigation, put the image of the letter indicating what that investigation is, or e-mail me the name and contact information so I can verify it.

    If you have any actual evidence that Gill is behind on his physicals, or has failed a physical, or any actual evidence of his weight other than your own guess, post it.

    There are some who believe democracy should be a battle for ideas and policies and philosophies and visions.

    There are others for whom the end justifies the means, who believe that politics is about destroying their fellow human beings for sport.

    You are in the latter group, whether you wanted to be or not. I find it distasteful even to have these conversations with you, because it by nature becomes personal due to the nature of the charges you are bringing (although I will note that my “personal” expressions about you are solely regarding the specific facts of these cases, and not about anything outside the claims you are making and my opinion of their veracity and your motives.

    [Ed note: false allegations made by poster have been removed from this comment]

  27. Jonathan Mark said on 31 Mar 2007 at 9:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"their stellar character references for him that I heard at the meeting today,”"”

    Whose character references for Faisal? Were Cooch and Bolling there? What did they say?

    Did anyone who was announced as attending (Cuccinelli, Bolling, Stewart, Lingamfelter) not show up?

  28. Greg L said on 31 Mar 2007 at 9:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    There were never charges filed against Faisal Gill in 2004. There was a scandal, an investigation, and an announcement right before the 2004 election that Faisal Gill had done nothing wrong, only to see him leave his appointed position the following January. We have seen long after that he did in fact describe his relationship with the AMC and Islamic Institute differently between his ethics disclosures and his SF86 security clearance application. In one of these, he states he worked for an advocate for the imposition of Sharia law on the United States. In the other he says he was working directly for an organization lead by a Hamas supporter who is now a convicted terrorist.

    You say those pictures of Gill in uniform that were used in his campaign materials were taken for some other purpose. I believe their content, quality and utilization strongly suggests they were taken expressly for campaign purposes. I’ll let readers come to their own conclusion of who is right on this one.

    I have been informed that the ethics charges filed against Gill & Gallinger in fact were not thrown out, but were substantiated and his firm was strongly cautioned not to engage in improper actions such as these in the future, although the complaint itself was dismissed. That Gill lied about the outcome of this incident, and James Young and yourself uncritically decided to parrot Gill’s intentionally inaccurate statements without requesting any substantiation makes me wonder if this issue here isn’t my dedication to determining the truth here, but yours. Since Faisal Gill has publicly talked about this issue with the intent of having his statements published, he has effectively waived his right to confidentiality on this complaint, and you would be well within your rights to request documentation on UPL Investigation 07-0005 from the Virginia State Bar. If you’re such a warrior for the truth, go find it.

    I would caution you to refrain from making statements about the ongoing litigation between Steve Chapman and myself, or the events that lead up to them unless you take some time to ensure that you accurately relate the facts. Time and the degradation of the internet bread crumb trail make it easy to say things about this case and the events that lead up to it that are not accurate. It’s difficult for me to discuss matters related to ongoing litigation, and if I come to the conclusion that your inaccurate statements damage my ability to defend myself, I will not hesitate to vigorously protect my legal interests.

  29. Not Eric Cartman said on 31 Mar 2007 at 9:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    It turned out there was a snuke there, but it was planted by Russian mercenaries hired by Queen Elizabeth II to provide cover for an attempted British attack to end the American Revolution. Quite awesome.

  30. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 10:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM: They were both there. I’ve got mp3’s of the major speeches, but they aren’t well-done and I don’t post mp3s anyway.

    I’ve re-listened to the endorsement speeches again, and I will listen one more time, and I might post the highlights in transcript form. I mostly wanted to guard against anybody making false claims about what was said (I’ve done this for several nominating conventions as well, just so I can remember what is said if somone claims something I don’t think is correct).

  31. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 10:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    As to Greg’s correction of my claim of “charges” in 2004, he is making a distinction I did not, that “charges” must mean criminal charges, where I used the term as a more generic use of “allegations”. People charged that there was something amiss, and those “charges” were found to be baseless.

    Gill was cleared, as contemporary news reports show. But nevertheless, allegations were made, and those allegations can be used as a cover to make claims that were dismissed with impunity. Whatever the supposed “differences” in the paperwork, that was the subject of the investigation that found the disclosures were complete and accurate.

    The juxtaposition of the years 2004 and 2005 cannot be refuted, of course, nor that the charges were made in 2004, and Gill ended his service after the election was over. Of course, a lot of people choose the start of another term to leave, so that the President can find replacements that will serve for another 4 years, rather than having to deal with replacements in mid-term.

    However, given he was cleared of the charges/allegations, there is no rational basis for thinking he left because of the allegations, except that if I were Gill I probably would have quit after I cleared my name because it’s not worth it serving your country if people are going to just smear your good name.

    Again, my purpose is to discuss allegations made against others, and refute them, not to discuss the personal character of people posting. If my statements seem to personal or attacking, please answer back regarding what seems a personal attack, and I will do my best to re-word, explain, or apologize. It is my intent to vigorously fight ANY charges made against ANY republican which I think are baseless — not to pick fights with other bloggers.

  32. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 10:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not Eric Cartman:

    Were you there? Butters was in the corner, but he said he didn’t see you.

  33. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 10:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM:

    All people you listed were there. All people on Gill’s endorsement list were there.

  34. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 10:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, just so I understand:

    I’ve been hearing from several folks who have contacted Navy JAG offices regarding Faisal Gill’s wearing of his uniform while conducting campaign activities

    That was the claim you made in a blog entry several days ago. I note that the claim is not that YOU contacted a JAG officer, or had any such contact, but that others had. I only ask because I don’t want you to think I’m lying about what you said — are you claiming direct contact with JAG yourself, as I think you did, or not?

    Also, your statement asserts without equivacation or opinion that Gill wore his uniform while conducting campaign activities. Would it be accurate to say that your position NOW is that the only “activity” you are claiming is his having a picture taken, and the only evidence you have is your “belief” that the pictures in his flyer were taken for the campaign, rather than certain knowledge?

    And last, I never saw you comment on my question regarding your competing claims that he was too fat to fit into his uniform, and that he put on his uniform to take campaign pictures. Would it be safe to say that your position NOW is that he DOES fit into his uniform, notwithstanding your previous claims and your current claim that you believe him to be too fat?

    I really want to make sure I understand what your position is at this time, to be accurate about what you are claiming and what evidence if any you admit to having or not having.

  35. AWCheney said on 31 Mar 2007 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Including Milt Johns, Charles? I believe I read somewhere that he is still handing out literature claiming Milt’s endorsement

  36. Greg L said on 31 Mar 2007 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have not made a complaint to the JAG office, but received information from someone who has. I believe it is clear that Gill put his uniform on to take campaign photos which were later used for his campaign mailers. As for his tailor, it does seem that some tremendous skill was leveraged and indeed, there is a Naval uniform that will fit Faisal Gill’s considerable girth.

    Does that help?

  37. charles said on 31 Mar 2007 at 11:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    I haven’t seen any literature with Milt on it. It’s not on the items that were at the kickoff, Milt’s name is not on the web site. There are obviously items out there with Milt’s name on them because at one time Milt had given Gill permission to use his name. Whether someone has a pile of those and is handing them out, I could not say, I can only speak to what I saw at the kickoff and in fliers I have been sent to correct misstatements on this blog.

    Milt was not at the kickoff. I met one school board member there who I don’t think was wearing a Gill sticker, so I don’t know if any others were there (even though I just saw them, I wouldn’t recognize them, and I was focused on taking pictures of the speakers and general crowd shots so I might have missed some people.

    There were over 100 people there, many of whom I did not recognize (although the same could be said for a typical PWC committee meeting, I am horrible with remembering people’s names and faces).

    Also, the food was excellent, and there was plenty of it. Some unique and spicy dishes, some old standards, shrimp, mini-pizzas, cookies, cake, fruit, lots of stuff, lots of sodas and other drinks, I’ve got pictures i’ll put up on my blog.

    Since I’m not a regular at these events, I can’t say how it compares to others, so I’ll defer to someone with more experience, Bill Bolling, who said it was impressive. I just know there was a lot of people who clapped a lot and seemed very excited to be supporting a fine candidate.

    It’s too bad there’s so much personal bad blood overrunning the discussions here, because we could be talking about what Gill said in his speech. He is actually a very good speaker, I was surprised after his speech at the committee, but he had well-prepared remarks, he spoke eloquently, he ad-libbed appropriately. I was pretty impressed, and I’m not easily impressed by speakers.

    I can see why Scott says he wants Gill down on the floor of the house with him next year. Gill would be an immediately powerful voice for our community, he spoke strongly, forcefully, and with firm conviction. I noted that also talking to him on Monday. He doesn’t back down from a fight, and he has a self-assured attitude that is necessary to be an effective politician.

    Note, I have no opinion on Julie in this regard, as I’ve only heard her speak at our committee meeting once. I can only speak to what I saw in Faisal. And frankly, I wish that was what everybody did, talk about what the candidates say, what they support, what they will do.

    But that will be impossible in this blog as you can’t go five posts without JM spamming up the works with his Johnny-one-note terrorism charges.

  38. Greg L said on 31 Mar 2007 at 11:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    One note of clarification here would be that Milt Johns gave conditional permission for Faisal Gill to use his name if Julie Lucas was not going to run. Milt received word after Faisal printed up campaign materials and intended to hand them out at the Occoquan convention with his name on them and was very upset about this. Milt did not know that Gill was intending to put him on his campaign materials until very soon before the Occoquan convention.

    I’ve heard reports that campaign materials with Milt’s name on them continued to appear well after Milt demanded his name not be used on Gill’s campaign literature, but I don’t have any idea whether this was an oversight, just old materials not being recalled from volunteer inventories quickly enough, or happened for other reasons.

  39. charles said on 1 Apr 2007 at 2:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I have an e-mail from Milt Johns on the subject which does not agree with your statement of his position. It could be he told us different things. I did not get permission to publish his e-mail, I told him I would use it only to argue the issue over in your blog.

    On a more general note, since I can’t compete with people who don’t mind writing with reckless disregard for the truth, and who have the power to edit my comments and call the deleted parts false without anybody being able to see what is being charged, and since trying to deal with the slew of false charges and unsubstantiated allegations has led me to be less than circumspect in some of my statements,

    and since I do not like even the appearance of being on a personal attack,

    I’m taking a break. Send me an e-mail with the information about this JAG guy you claim is investigating, and I’ll check it out, but I won’t be responding to anybody here for a while. I also won’t be posting to my own blog for a while in all likelyhood. It’s spring and I’m going to enjoy it.

    Faisal Gill’s kickoff has made me believe that he’s got plenty of people who are part of his campaign and his support group who can defend him adequately anyway, and since it isn’t my district and therefore I don’t have a dog in the fight, it’s absurd for me to continue given the playing field presented here.

  40. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Apr 2007 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"And frankly, I wish that was what everybody did, talk about what the candidates say, what they support, what they will do.”"”

    But we should also talk about what the candidates have already done, because “talk is cheap” and “actions speak louder than words.”

    Faisal was the chief lobbyist for an extremist organization that was founded and guided by a now-convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. The name of the organization was the American Muslim Council and among its extremist positions was telling Moslems in the aftermath of 9-11 not to talk to the FBI.

    During the first Bush inauguration Abdurahman Alamoudi attempted to attend an event sponsored by the American Arab Institute, run by James Zogby. Zogby’s staff told Alamoudi that he was not welcome and denied him admission.

    No one is sure when Gill worked for the AMC, it is one of the things that Gill stonewalls. But we know he worked there in 2001. So here we have Zogby denying Alamoudi admission because of Alamoudi’s extremist rhetoric, and doing the opposite. Gill went to work for Alamoudi’s organization the AMC as its chief lobbyist.

    How many of those who endorsed Gill (Bolling, Cuccinelli, Lingamfelter, Stewart, et al) know the above facts? How many would care if they did know?

    Remember that Alamoudi used to visit the White House and other government officials because of his group’s lobbyists such as its chief lobbyist Faisal Gill. Alamoudi’s entree into the upper reaches of the Republican party was a scandal. Gill was part of it as the AMCs chief lobbyist.

  41. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Apr 2007 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    I meant that Gill did the opposite of Zogby and embraced Alamoudi’s organization the American Council by going to work for it as its chief lobbyist.

    Charles might argue that we cannot prove that AMC chief lobbyist Gill ever lobbied Moslems not to talk to the FBI, even though that was his employers’ position.

    The question is why Gill worked for Alamoudi’s extremist group the American Muslim Council at all.

  42. Anonymous said on 1 Apr 2007 at 1:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    There were several uneasy moments at the event. Some were taken aback by hearing about the Judeo, Christian, Muslim heritage and tradition in America.

    It would be interesting to listen to the speeches and get the transcripts.

  43. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Apr 2007 at 3:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    If Charles wishes to send me the MP3s I will make a transcript that everyone can see. Or I will place the MP3s online where everyone can see them.

    The public has a right to hear Cuccinelli, Bolling, Lingamfelter and Stewart fulsomely praising Faisal Gill, the former chief lobbyist for the terrorist-founded and led American Muslim Council.

  44. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Apr 2007 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Some were taken aback by hearing about the Judeo, Christian, Muslim heritage and tradition in America.”"”

    What about Buddhists and Hindus? Buddhists have been in Hawaii for centuries. Why did Faisal mention Moslems but not Hindus. I meet more Hindus every day than I do Moslems.

    Given the bad blood between Hindus and Moslems in Pakistan I would say that Faisal’s reference to Moslems but omission of a reference to Hindus was intentional.

  45. anon said on 1 Apr 2007 at 3:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is a FACT that Gill worked for the AMC in Sept. 2001 as the “Director of Government Affairs”. Gill is identified as holding this position in a press release from the AMC.

  46. John Light said on 2 Apr 2007 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Google Faisal Gill

  47. The Skeptic said on 4 Apr 2007 at 6:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    How can Lucas have a fair Convention when the top two figureheads of the Committee are personal friends and supporters of Gills. Add in Chairman Stewart who not only attended the kick off, he MC’d. I’d say there is no way Lucas can have a fair Convention. It will be intentionally sabotaged, or so poorly planned and executed the outcome will be flawed. Ulrich the former vice chair coordinated the Chairman’s Convention. Occoquan was a cluster of which Gill coordinated by way of delegation from Kopko.

    Recently at the Committee’s election for a vice chair, the voting process was a joke. We had voters who weren’t even members voting such as Mike May’s Aide Cronin. By the way his wife is Stewarts Aide.

  48. morganusvitus said on 5 Apr 2007 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    The site looks great ! Thanks for all your help ( past, present and future !)

Comments are closed.


Views: 2605