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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does that help?

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.

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

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

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.

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).