-Is Julie Lucas over weight?
-Has Julie Lucas expressed concerns that emails she received from John Light make him seem unstable?
-Has Julie Lucas claimed that a certain fellow school board member was making improper decisions on behalf of the superintendent during Dr. Kelly’s last years?

The answer to these questions is YES, but I contend that if her opponent were to spread this trash (because that’s what it is, true facts or not), then we could correctly accuse her opponent of smearing her. These facts (except perhaps the third one) have little to do with the office she is seeking. I’m sorry, but I think your logic is flawed, David H–. I contend that we can “smear” a person with factoids. I don’t think that I need to provide additional examples to prove my point.

ETHNIC INNUENDO AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
Abdulrahman Alamoudi was indicted and convicted of making false statements, money transfers, and money laundering. He pled guilty to having illegal business dealings with Libya and involvement in a plot to assassinate crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (ala Iran-Contra). Those are the facts. Alamoudi was a criminal. Because he is a Muslim, we also GET TO CALL HIM a terrorist. If we non-Muslims are convicted of those crimes, we’re just criminals.

The American Muslim Council and many other Muslim organizations were investigated after 9/11. America took precautions; as a result, some of Gill’s legal clients have been investigated. (I thought that was when you need a lawyer, when someone accuses you of something) I have seen bloggers accuse Gill of being a “Terror Lobbyist,” but I have not seen any documents to show that Gill’s firm lobbied for any firm convicted of terrorism.

SIGNING OFF…AGAIN
You guys have fun. I haven’t checked in here since Greg L and I did battle on Valentine’s Day. I’m checking out for a long while again. I contend that Greg L won that day; I won the several months following by not engaging….

http://www.votejulielucas.com

I would be more than happy to debate anyone on the issues of the day (as I have on previous blogs here at bvbl) as far as Julie’s support or questions about her voting record. But, seeing that Faisal has NO voting record, then what is done is basic research on the man to see what type of person he is, what his background is, etc. When the bare-bones research is done, there is NOTHING but disturbing results.

Jim Young may have a perfect record when it comes to law cases, but his support for local candidates is ANYTHING than stellar. People used to gripe to me about Jim and even Jim joked how people did not appreciate his “in your face” attitude. And while in the past I would say that he MIGHT have tempered things some, now I have to say that he has gone off the deep end.

But is it just Jim? No, it appears that it is ALL in the Gill camp. What their problem is is that they have lost soooo many political fights in the past that when they FINALLY think they have their man, it turns out that he has more issues than “Time Life”. There are basic questions that need to be answered once and for all by Faisal, NOT his lackey’s, in order to end the debate.

Lord knows, if ANYONE was to question MY honor or past associations (as a member of the Masonic Lodge and a Southern Baptist, you better believe I get it ALL the time) I would write an editorial, go on channel 8, do whatever it took to end the lies and concentrate on the race at hand.

But the reason this HAS NOT been done is, he honestly believes he has done nothing wrong. His supporters are up in arms because they know in their hearts that “if I only knew then what I know now!!!” they would not have supported his candidacy. They want to blame “late filing”, even though Ms. Lucas was talking about running back in Dec/Jan time frame. Even when you have NO ONE running against you, as a candidate you are to run as if you do until the final minute to file the intent to run.

Though I do not live in the 51st, I would not vote for Faisal as dog catcher if we lived in the same District. In good conscious I could NEVER support him for ANYTHING, and after talking with a good number of people in and out of the 51st, I am not alone in that thought.

What is gained IF Faisal wins??? What is gained if Julie Lucas (http://www.votejulielucas.com) wins??? Do the research, do the gut check. If Julie wins, WE ALL WIN!!!

You’ve now referred to me as both John Jenkins and Jeff Dion “in drag.” That hurts. I can assure you that I am neither old, nor fat, nor balding, nor homosexual.

Just wanted to clear that up.

I was basically just jerking your chain a little on the “wifebeater” comment. But there are a few important points here:

First, the is a big difference between an average joe like myself and a candidate for public office being accused of being a “wifebeater” or of having questionable associations. Look at Giuliani, who I’m fully supporting for the GOP nomination (and I fully expect to hear the littany of reasons why he isn’t “conservative” and couldn’t care less). He’s got some real issues with his past association with figures supposedly involved in organized crime. Many voters are going to want answers on this. And how he addresses will affect some votes. Will it affect mine? Probably not. But if he doesn’t address it well enough for voters who are otherwise lukewarm to him and they choose to vote from someone else, I certainly won’t begrudge them that. Nor will I complain that people who pose the question are “smearing” him by bringing it up. It’s a legitimate concern, just as Faisal’s association with a known terrorist is cause for concern.

The other point is the support for the accusation. You don’t know who I am (as I’ve said before, we’ve met several times, but that’s neither here nor there). You can accuse me of being a “wifebeater,” but unless you know my identity and have some facts upon which to base the accusation, it’s pretty meaningless. In Gill’s case, the facts are absolutely irrefutable. He did work for the AMC for a period of time, an organization that was heavily influenced by a known terrorist. Is it possible that Faisal knew nothing of this and is completely innocent of any wrongdoing or activities that most Americans would find questionable? Of course it is! But here’s the rub: If he wants to represent our interests as a Legislator in Richmond, he needs to be willing to openly and honestly address his time representing an organization with some questionable ties. The appearance here is that he hasn’t been willing to do that. And that is going to look very bad to voters. Rest assured that the Dems will beat it to death during the run up to November should he get the nomination. In fact, one of the benefits of nominating contests is to deal with issues like this early on so they can be non-issues in the general election. Until Gill and/or his supporters are willing to tackle this head-on, it’s far from a non-issue.

My wife and I are very happily married, to which those who do know my identity can attest. I’ve never laid a hand on my wife in anger, and have certainly never been investigated nor confronted by the authorities regarding domestic violence issues.

Despite our obvious differences, I will say that I hope the same is and remains true for you as well.

Johnathon makes a very good point, however, in mentioning the fact that I am not running for public office. Gill is. Like it or not, questions such as these, while not particularly relevent regarding you and I, take on tremendous significance when considering elected officials. And frequently, the manner in which the question is addressed is just as, if not more, important than the actual answer.

I refuse to answer because, quite simply, I DON’T CARE! The answers to those question mean nothing, except to someone who is trying to smear a man by guilt-through-association and innuendo. Do they mean that Faisal Gill was complicit in anyone’s crimes? Please, I urge you to make that assertion explicitly, and expose yourself to the civil liability that you apparently fear by doing so, but that you so richly deserve. Since you fear civil liability, you couch your smear in innuendo, leaving the unsophisticated reader to assume that there’s a there, there. It’s illegitimate, and cowardly. If you (or Greg) had any real proof that Faisal Gill were involved in criminal activity, I would suggest that you take it to the U.S. Attorney, or other appropriate law enforcement official. That you do not, or have not, speaks more about your character than anything you could possibly say about Faisal Gill.

After all, how legitimate can the arguments of someone who supported a known liar (Bill Clinton) be?

Therefore, I’m trying to understand what this is “a warning” about. Demonstrating that one could create the same kind of smear about “Mitch”? Am I warned because I’m outing the strategy of the smear, or because I “smeared” “Mitch”? And if the latter, pray tell, how does one smear a pseudonym?

Note that James Young again refuses to state whether the following facts are true or false:

(1) Gill was the Chief Lobbyist for the American Muslim Council.

(2) The former head of the AMC is in prison for his links to terrorism.

It doesn’t matter whether the facts are put to James Young as a question which he refuses to answer, or a statement whose accuracy he refuses to address. Here are some of James unbelievable attempts to avoid answering the question “Was Faisal Gill the Chief Lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?”

Young states in response, along with various ad hominen attacks on messengers:

(1) “”"JM offers no proof”"”

Questions do not require proof. That is why they are questions.

(2)”"”that Faisal was much involved with the AMC for very long (people in such positions come and go),”"”

That was not the question. The question is whether Faisal Gill is the former chief lobbyist for the AMC, not whether being the chief lobbyist was an important position at the AMC. So how about it, James, was Faisal Gill the chief lobbyist at the AMC?

(3) “”"and certainly, no proof that he was aware of Alamoudi’s crimes.”"”

Again irrelevant and not responsive to the question. Was Abdurahman Alamoudi in a position of authority and leadership at the AMC? Hence, the question’s included reference to “the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.”

Having failed to respond to the questions, the rest of James Young’s response consists of various catalogs of the failings of various persons, none of whom are running for office:

(1) Mitch Cumstein
(2) Jonathan Mark
(3) Bill Clinton
(4) Chuck Robb
(5) William Jefferson
(6) Dan Rostenkowski

Is Faisal Gill the former chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?

“”"If such proof existed, are you seriously suggesting that he would not have suffered consequences,”"”

Proof that he was the Chief Lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council? I am asking you whether Faisal Gill held that position or not.

Why do you refuse to answer, James?

JM offers no proof that Faisal was much involved with the AMC for very long (people in such positions come and go), and certainly, no proof that he was aware of Alamoudi’s crimes. If such proof existed, are you seriously suggesting that he would not have suffered consequences, OR that he would have received a presidential appointment in these times? Your lies are too elaborate to be maintained.

After all, Jonathan is/has been associated with the Democrat Party, and therefore was associated with a number of known felons: Chuck Robb (admitted); William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (admitted and sanctioned); Dan Rostenkowski (convicted); and William Jefferson (under investigation). Are we to attribute their crimes to him?

What’s going on here is that you’re playing the Internet game. Get enough out there to associate Faisal’s name with terrorism. Then suggest that people “Google” those two words.

Shall we try another game? How about I post web pages here and there with “Mitch Cumstein” and “wifebeater”? It’s the same principle.

Bias has absolutely nothing to do with the overarching question, which is: Do Faisal Gills past actions and associations make him unfit for public office?

This same question can and should be asked of every candidate for any public office. It’s become a decidedly bigger issue in Faisal’s case because there are more questions than usual.

Now, that isn’t to say that responses to this question will not be affected by individual bias. That’s unavoidable. But the pro-Faisal crowd, nor Faisal himself, seem willing to address the question. Instead, we get a combination of bob-and-weave along with cries of smears and bigotry.

So, let’s take a simpler question:

It is an undisputable fact that Gill was the Chief Lobbyist for the American Muslim Council. It is also true that the former head of that organization is in prison for his links to terrorism. Can you, with a straight face, say that this doesn’t concern you?

No the question is: “Was Faisal Gill the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council?”

James Young’s unwillingness to answer this question is apparent.

And as for you, “Mitch,” at least Greg doesn’t hide behind a pseudonym, so that his biases are public knowledge. “Avoid the question”!?!? You keep acting as though there is a “question.” No, there are smears, little threads weaved together into whole cloth by an admitted Democrat, and used by those who think the principle purpose of the GOP should be merely to slow down the raging socialism of the Democrats.

Here we go again.

You’re using the lawsuit against Greg as an excuse to avoid the question.