Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Twenty Four Hours

By Greg L | 31 May 2007 | 51st HOD District | 77 Comments

Desperation apparently has a real potential to lead to atrocity. Instead of answering criticism that Faisal Gill may have been violating federal laws governing lobbyists, apparently violated campaign finance laws in his latest mail piece, and that his current law partner has been a lobbyist for several entities listed by the Treasury Department as “Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations”, some supporters of Faisal Gill have gone on the attack claiming that Julie Lucas was dating a married man, and ponied up campaign volunteer John Light as the suspect. Not only does this mark a new low in the 51st District race, but the allegation is patently untrue as John Light has been divorced for several years and his ex-wife lives out of state at this time.

John Light has said that he intends to discuss this matter with his attorney, and he’s right to do so. Being a private citizen, the standard he would have to meet as a plaintiff in a defamation case would be pretty low. I haven’t yet conclusively determined who is responsible for these anonymous and wrongful slanders, but those responsible have undertaken no technical efforts to try to conceal their identity and it will be entirely possible for their identities to be revealed and for them to face the consequences of their reprehensible behavior. Being an anonymous poster does not entirely shield you from being identified, it only makes it marginally more difficult to identify you.

I’m going to give those responsible for this twenty four hours to identify themselves, come clean and apologize for their behavior. I suggest they take advantage of this opportunity.

UPDATE: “Unbiased Observer” read this post at 12:48 from his PC which runs Windows XP, using Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0 revised to version 1.1.4322 of the .NET CLR runtime. I suggest again that he use this opportunity wisely.



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.

77 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 12:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    It was me!!

    [Ed note: No, Bwana, it was not you.]

  2. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 31 May 2007 at 12:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Can we get the sound of Jack Bauer’s clock from “24″ going for this?

  3. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 12:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I’m going to give those responsible for this twenty four hours to identify themselves, come clean and apologize for their behavior. I suggest they take advantage of this opportunity.”

    What the heck does this mean??! Ooooooh everyone is very scared.

    It seems John Light is intent on suing anyway. What purpose would it serve for someone to apologize on this blog other than to identify themselves?!?

    Obviously it is technically impossible for BVBL to do identify anonymous posters to this blog. The best BVBL can do is to get an IP address… which means nothing…. So he has to “trick” them into indentifying themselves using silly gimmicks like this.

  4. Batson D. Belfrey said on 31 May 2007 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “It seems John Light is intent on suing anyway. What purpose would it serve for someone to apologize on this blog other than to identify themselves?!? ”

    It’s called a retraction dummy! Papers do it all the time. It minimizes the harm done to a point where a judge would be less inclined to let a suit move forward.

  5. outsidethebeltway said on 31 May 2007 at 12:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Either way, the anonymous poster is gutless for posting such things “anonymously” and sheds even more light on the truth being this is just a desperate attempt by the Gill campaign to hope people won’t think him being tied to terrorists is all that bad by spreading salacious lies about Julie- which is a load of…

  6. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wonder if anyone notices the anti-female subtext to Faisal Gill’s supporters’ remarks.

    Julie is unmarried. She dresses in normal American clothes, without a headdress or a veil. She is seeking political office.

    All of that is anathema to the leaders of jihadist extremist groups, such as lobbyist Faisal Gill’s former employer/client, the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    It sounds incredible, but to the jihadists even non-Moslem women who don’t obey their laws are immodest. A London jihadist who was planning to attack a disco expressed scorn for the intended female victims, who he called “slags.”

    Without mentioning the names of those who Faisal’s minions drag into this, we should point out that these accusations from Faisal’s supporters are consistent with the anti-woman worldview of his law/lobbying partner Asim Ghafoor and his former employer/client Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    These accusations could be very useful, especially among young unmarried women who may not know what Faisal is up to.

    And even if Faisal wins this weekend (I hope he won’t) we will still have these accusations to attack him with in the general election. It will motivate young female Dems and Republicans too to vote against Faisal.

    I say bring it on. Julie should not respond to these accusations at all. She should keep attacking Faisal over Faisal’s work for Islamists such as the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi and his current law/lobbying firm partner Asim Ghafoor.

  7. Greg L said on 31 May 2007 at 1:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I already know with reasonable certainty who is responsible for this. It’s not like I get all that much traffic from Fairfax County, so there’s not a big haystack to dig through here. My server logs also contain much more information about visitors than simply their IP address. Do not underestimate how much more I have at my fingertips through Apache webserver logs and the log analysis software I run on this server than bloggers who use third-party hosting.

    Besides, I learned long ago that it’s better to only ask questions when you already know the answers.

  8. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 1:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Greg…maybe you should give these miscreants just a taste of how easy it is to track them down. Why don’t you give their approximate location?

    BTW Batson, I agree…they are a bunch of dummies!

  9. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 1:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh…sorry Greg. Great minds and all that…

  10. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 1:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why is it Mr. Light can’t defend himself? Glad to see who wears the pants in that relationship.

  11. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 1:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why doesn’t Julie Lucas just publicly answer the questions and put all this to rest?

    Seems easy enough to do…. Unless the accusations of homewrecking are true…

  12. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 1:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here is the $64K Question:

    Who will BVBL support in a general election between Gill vs Nichols?

    I will hold my nose and support Gill over the Dem.

  13. Greg L said on 31 May 2007 at 1:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon, why doesn’t Faisal Gill answer questions about his apparent failure to register as a lobbyist and put that to rest?

    Seems easy enough to do… Unless he actually has been in violation of the law since 2001 and is staring down the barrel of over $150,000 in civil penalties…

  14. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 1:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    This accusation that Faisal Gill violated the law and “is staring down the barrel of over $150,000 in civil penalties” can easily be adjudicated in a court when/if anyone brings a suit. We will know the truth.

    Julie Lucas is not being accused of any crime. Just of being a home-wrecker. Her accusation will not be bought before any court. There will be no legal adjudication. So we should just take her honest word for it. If she denies the charges, then we can just all move right along.

    By the way, if as you claim FG was in violation of the law since 2001, why hasn’t anyone charged him with this before and had the book thrown at him?? It makes me question the credibility of the accusers.

  15. Ari Stotle said on 31 May 2007 at 1:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have always supported the convention winner but not this time. If Gill wins the convention on Saturday there is no way I can vote for him. No way!

    Gill makes Nichols look like a knight in shining armour, and the Democrats are counting on that!

  16. Greg L said on 31 May 2007 at 2:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 1:37: Just because no one ever thought to see if Gill was a registered lobbyist before, especially in light of Faisal Gill never saying anything about this in the past, has no bearing on the fact that no record of him ever filing paperwork about his lobbying activities can be located. He’s never made a lot of noise about his lobbying efforts before, and he’s never claimed it’s evidence of his supposed qualifications for office until this week.

    This is kind of a binary thing. Either he has filed the required paperwork, or he hasn’t. If he hasn’t filed that paperwork, he either lied to the voters about being a lobbyist, or is clearly in violation of the lobbyist disclosure laws.

    Whether anyone has bothered to ask about this before has no bearing on whether it’s true or not.

  17. no name said on 31 May 2007 at 2:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ari Stotle-
    If that is indeed the case, I hope you are not participating in the convention. All convention delegates sign the pledge that says they will support the Republican nominees in November. I realize there is no way to actually prove who you vote for, but the spirit of the pledge is such that we all come together and try to help make sure a Republican wins, even if it is your second choice b/t two Republican candidates (e.g. Gill in your case).

  18. k. o'toole said on 31 May 2007 at 2:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I will hold my nose and support Gill over the Dem.”

    Beware of voting for Islamists - as I was recently told, in the Middle East, Christians must pay an Infidel Tax along with their income taxes, and churches are routinely burned and ministers murdered.

    [Ed note: comment edited]

  19. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    Can you at least pledge to support the Republican candidate for Delegate in the 51st District in the general election?

    If Lucas wins the convention I will support her.
    If Gill wins the convention I will support him.

    Let’s have all the BVBL readers at least agree to this simple pledge. I think it should be a no-brainer.

  20. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 2:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"# no name said on 31 May 2007 at 2:03 pm:

    Ari Stotle-
    If that is indeed the case, I hope you are not participating in the convention. All convention delegates sign the pledge that says they will support the Republican nominees in November.”"”

    Read the pledge It says that the delegate INTENDS to support the nominee. Anyone who INTENDS for Julie Lucas to the the nominee and INTENDS to vote for her should sign the pledge.

    If the RPV placed the word “intend” there for a reason. They want to root out people who vote for the weaker candidate in order to weaken the party. For example, Dems could vote for Faisal in order to rack up a quick win and an easy victory in November.

    “”"but the spirit of the pledge is such that we all come together and try to help make sure a Republican wins,”"”

    “The spirit of the pledge” is subjective. I think the “spirit of the pledge” is to stop Paul Nichols supporters from voting for the weaker candidate, Faisal.

    “”"even if it is your second choice b/t two Republican candidates (e.g. Gill in your case).”"”

    Some Republican posters here do not consider Faisal to be their second choice or even their last choice. He is not their choice at all, and they will support Nichols.

    You assume too much when you speak of Faisal as being a “second choice.” Faisal is unfit for office in the eyes of many due to his past employment as the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.

  21. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow K. O’toole,

    One of the mantras here at BVBL has always been that this is not about racism, or Islamophobia but bad judgement by Faisal Gill.

    In one fail swoop, you have shattered that thin facade and given ammunition to all those who claimed that supporters of Julie Lucas are bigots.

    Nice Going. Now it is clear what this whole effort at BVBL has been all about from the beginning: [reference removed]

    [Ed note: the comment referenced here has been edited to remove objectionable content. The reference to that content in this post has also been edited.]

  22. Julie Supporter said on 31 May 2007 at 2:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous - question for you. Doesn’t the paperwork actually say that as Delegate you INTEND to support the Republican nominee?

    If a member of the KKK was to run as a Republican and somehow win the Convention, could you honestly blame the mainstream Republicans for NOT voting for the nominee (either thru write-in or not voting at all)?

  23. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 2:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"# Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:11 pm:

    Greg,

    Can you at least pledge to support the Republican candidate for Delegate in the 51st District in the general election?”"”

    Why should he? Greg L seems to intend that Julie wins, and he intends to vote for her in November. That is sufficient. Read the Delegate pledge, noting the use of the word “intends.”

    What if the Republicans nominated Gill’s former boss/client Abdurahman Alamoudi instead of Gill? Would Greg have to vote for Alamoudi?

    Here is what everyone who reads BVBL and can vote in HOD-51 should pledge.

    If Lucas wins the convention I will support her.
    If Gill wins the convention THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I WILL SUPPORT HIM, and I will be angry at Ken Cuccinelli, Bill Bolling et al for promoting this INSULTING FARCE of a candidate.

    Let’s have all the BVBL readers at least agree to this simple pledge. I think it should be a no-brainer. Faisal is unfit for office due to his work for and with Abdurahman Alamoudi and Asim Ghafoor.

  24. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathon…

    I understand your frustration.

    But please, I implore you, do not help the Dems take another seat of power in VA so that they can shove higher taxes down our throats.

    Support Julie on Saturday.
    Support the Republican Nominee on Sunday.

  25. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    Please Smackdown k. O’toole to save the credibility of this blog.

    And Please pledge to support the Republican on Sunday.

  26. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Now it is clear what this whole effort at BVBL has been all about from the beginning: “Muslims are patient, reproducing at much faster rates than the Western world and are infiltrating politics””"”

    The poster who submitted the above should be concerned about the anti-female elements of Faisal Gill’s campaign. Julie is single, doesn’t wear a veil or a headscarf, is unmarried, western, therefore she is immodest. That is the whole basis for the Gill supporters’ accusation.

    Julie should hold her ground and keep attacking Faisal’s work for Abdurahman Alamoudi as the imprisoned terrorist’s chief lobbyist. Her flyers are working. And there may be some last minute converts on the day of the convention.

    In a few days this will be over. The anti-female piffle that Faisal’s people are spreading won’t sway a single delegate. Julie’s mailers do and have.

  27. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 2:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous 2:11, why should Greg even have to answer that question…he doesn’t even live in the district, as is the case with many of the Gill apologists. Those of us who are not delegates will not be signing any pledge, so the question is moot.

  28. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 2:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Of course, at least most of us at least live in the County.

  29. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 2:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"”Greg,

    Please Smackdown k. O’toole to save the credibility of this blog.

    And Please pledge to support the Republican on Sunday.”"”"

    Greg, you owe no one anything, and you certainly owe nothing to Faisal Gill. Pledge that you intend to support Julie on Saturday and in November. That is all you need to do.

  30. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    What a load of hooey Jonathon Mark spews.

    Accusations of participating are now anti-women!??! Geez!

    So any woman can now sleep with a married man and get away with it. If somebody challenges her, then they are anti-women (as long as she doesn’t wear a headscarf)?!?

    Wow…. that is some twisted, crazy-ass, logic that will convince very few people.

  31. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    What a load of hooey Jonathon Mark spews.

    Accusations of participating in adultery are now anti-women!??! Geez!

    So any woman can now sleep with a married man and get away with it. If somebody challenges her, then they are anti-women (as long as she doesn’t wear a headscarf)?!?

    Wow…. that is some twisted, crazy-ass, logic that will convince very few people.

  32. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ok.

    If no-one here is willing to support FG in November…. Can we all instead pledge to support Paul Nichols in November?

  33. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”But please, I implore you, do not help the Dems take another seat of power in VA so that they can shove higher taxes down our throats.”"”

    Faisal’s endorser State Senator Cuccinelli (R-37) already voted for higher taxes when he voted for the transportation compromise. The compromise granted new transportation taxing authority to local and regional governments in Northern Virginia.

    If Faisal is anything like his endorser Cuccinelli then Faisal will vote for new regional taxing authorities too, just as Cuccinelli did.

    Nichols is the better choice. He has never been the chief lobbyist for a convicted terrorists organization. Nichols has never stormed out of a White House meeting because the 20-year-old son of now-convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian was denied admission.

    Nichols has never issued a nasty letter impugning White House security personnel.

    Faisal has done all three. The new transportation taxes that Cuccinelli voted for, and that presumably his protege Gill would have voted for, could run in the billions. BILLIONS!

    Don’t wave the no-tax flag. Cuccinelli shot it full of holes, and it is in tatters. Don’t believe a single word that Cuccinelli and his protege Gill say about taxes.

  34. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 2:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wonder if Anonymous is sitting in Couch’s office right now?

  35. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 2:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    …or is that Cooch?

  36. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear K. O’Toole:

    You said: “as I was recently told, in the Middle East, Christians must pay an Infidel Tax”

    I challenge you to please substantiate this.
    In which Middle Eastern country must Christians pay an Infidel Tax and how the heck does that have anything to do with District 51??

    This is bigotry plain and simple. It is a false suggestion that voting for FG will lead to an “Infidel Tax”.

    Is Julie Lucas so desperate that her supporters must resort to slimey, bigoted gutter politics to try to win this election?

    Why can’t Julie win on the issues?

  37. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    Thanks for your wise & fair decision to remove part of K. O’Toole’s comments. I applaud you.

  38. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 2:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    K. O’Toole said: “as I was recently told, in the Middle East, Christians must pay an Infidel Tax”

    Which country is this?! Please tell me. So that I can call my Congressman to demand that the US immediately impose sanctions.

  39. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 2:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"What a load of hooey Jonathon Mark spews.

    Accusations of participating in adultery are now anti-women!??! Geez!”"”

    When emanating from a former chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council? When such accusations are devoid of any reference to any evidence that the accused engaged in the behavior? Yes they probably are.

    People you are getting a little taste of the hell that America will become once former staffers for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council run things.

    Once Asim Ghafoor’s law and lobbying partners run things.

    “Google Faisal Gill” and you will find all the evidence you need that he was the chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council. Try the first hit, Michelle Malkin’s “Who Is Faisal Gill” at michellemalkin.com.

    Google Juile Lucas. Nothing derogatory at all.

    In Iran the government accuses women of prostitution if they wear makeup! Extremist Islamist groups routinely accuse women of prostitution and adultery without evidence. The real reason is that the accused females do not conform to the Iranian government’s version of Islam and its view of women.

    “”"So any woman can now sleep with a married man and get away with it.”"”

    Whoa! What is the basis for claiming that anyone slept with a married anyone? You are getting ahead of the game here.

    “”"If somebody challenges her, then they are anti-women (as long as she doesn’t wear a headscarf)?!?”"”

    If someone supporting the former chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council challenges her WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE to any evidence?

    Yes, in that case the accuser’s real gripe is probably that the unmarried woman is not wearing a head scarf and perhaps has a boy friend.

    Otherwise what is the basis?

  40. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathon Marks says:

    “Yes, in that case the accuser’s real gripe is probably that the unmarried woman is not wearing a head scarf and perhaps has a boy friend. Otherwise what is the basis?”

    Wow. This is an embarrassing low even for Jonathon Mark’s usually poorly argued positions. I’m laughing.

    The problem is that the Democrats will field a solid candidate, with lots of money and excellent arguing skills. If our side is full of jokers who make nutjob arguments like this, we will definitely not win.

    We need more Republican unity to fight off the tax-hiking Dems.

    I will support the Republican. We all should.
    Do you want to see a Democrat elected?

  41. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    By showing division amongst the Republican ranks, we only encourage Democrats. Time for some unity folks.

    Let’s remember that in the end, this election will pit an R against a D.

    By not supporting the R, you will be supporting the D.

  42. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    K. O’Toole runs and hides when asked which Middle Eastern country imposes and “Infidel Tax”.

    K. O’Toole? K. O’Toole? You still there?
    To cowardly to back up your outlandish statements?

    … Crickets Chirping …

    … Crickets Napping …

    … Crickets Wake Up and Chirping Some More…

  43. k. o'toole said on 31 May 2007 at 3:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    “… the (non-Muslim) community is now being forced to pay the jizya, a “poll tax” requested from non Muslims according to the Koran, guaranteeing “protection” form the Islamic umma. The tax was once extracted by the Ottoman Empire until its collapse in 1918, but now Baghdad and Mosul’s Mosques have ordered it be put in place again, “without revealing it to authorities”.

    from: hyscience.com

    If you WANT to know, there is plenty of information. But don’t blame bvbl for info a stranger has submitted.

    Good luck.

  44. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anyone want to free Alamoudi from prison?

    http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?alamoudi

    Are there any Faisal Supporters there?

  45. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    K. O’Toole,

    You wrote earlier:

    “…in the Middle East, Christians must pay an Infidel Tax…”

    Now you quote from another blog, hyscience.com:

    “but now Baghdad and Mosul’s Mosques have ordered it be put in place again, “without revealing it to authorities””

    All you can do is quote ANOTHER BLOG post that says that such a tax was ordered (But makes no claim that it was paid)?!? Couldn’t you at least quote a credible news source??

    Wow. You should join the Jon Marks hall of Fame of “Worst Debaters Ever”. You two can match wits with my golden retriever… and loose.

    Look… if you & Julie hate FG because of his religion (as is clear from a now deleted portion of your post) just say so. People will understand, if not agree with, your positions. Even the KKK is granted freedom of speech. So at least you have that. You are following in an age-old American tradition.

    But you Jon Marks, and other Lucas supporters are falling over each other making crazier and crazier arguments, fabrications and lies. How can you do this with a straight face? Don’t you respect yourselves?

  46. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 3:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Wow. This is an embarrassing low even for Jonathan Mark’s usually poorly argued positions. I’m laughing.”"”

    Don’t laugh.

    Sexual accusations against the young, unmarried Julie today, birkas tomorrow, dhimmi (Jews and Christians under sharia) taxes the day after that, and finally killings of Bahais and lapsed Muslims.

    “”"I will support the Republican. We all should.”"”"

    And Julie should be that nominee. Then everyone would be happy.

    What if Faisal’s supporters decide to do away with all pretense and nominate Abdurahman Alamoudi instead? Would you vote for Abdurahman Alamoudi if he were the Republican HOD-51 nominee?

    “”"Do you want to see a Democrat elected?

    No, everyone who posts here wants to see Julie win. She took on the Faisal/Alamoudi cash machine and hopefully will win.

  47. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jon Marks spouts:

    “Sexual accusations against the young, unmarried Julie today, birkas tomorrow, dhimmi (Jews and Christians under sharia) taxes the day after that, and finally killings of Bahais and lapsed Muslims.”

    Look, we all know what the real objection to FG has been here at BVBL all along: Islamophobia.

    Now with about 36 hours left before the convention, all pretenses are being dropped. In a way, I applaud the candor of bigoted Lucas lackey like Marks and O’Toole. They tell the truth. Others obfuscate and try to hide their prejudice.

    Jon Marks comes out and says it finally: that electing FG will lead to killing of Non-Muslims. Ok. I see where you are going with this: Muslims are unfit for public office.

    Now that’s an interesting argument to make. I guess you feel it is the strongest one to make just before the showdown. But this only exposes Lucas’s candidacy as devoid of any ideas and full of people wearing white sheets and funny pointy hats.

  48. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"All you can do is quote ANOTHER BLOG post that says that such a tax was ordered (But makes no claim that it was paid)?!? Couldn’t you at least quote a credible news source??”"”"

    That’s infinitely more than you have against Julie.

    Again I say it. The Faisal people were steaming about the very successful “Google Faisal Gill” campaign.

    They knew that Julie doesn’t have the baggage that Faisal has, so they resorted to fabrications.

    What do they fabricate. They could have made up any accusation.

    But Julie is a young, single female. She does not wear a scarf on her head, and she does not dress with all of her arms and legs covered.

    So what pops into the heads of the Faisal Kool-Aid drinkers? They invent a sexual accusation.

    Until such time as we know why the Faisal Kool-Aid drinkers invented a sexual accusation against Julie instead of some other one I will continue to assert that the accusation is an outgrowth of the anti-female policies of Faisal’s former employer the American Muslim Council.

    Muslim female AMC office workers were for years required to wear head coverings and dress in accordance with Faisal’s former boss Alamoudi’s conception of how Muslim women should dress. The claim among the jihadists is that women who don’t dress like that are immodest.

    Now the supporters of the AMCs former chief lobbyist are making sexual accusations. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    Even if Faisal is the nominee (doubtful but possible) no moral Republican could vote for him in November. They would be placing the interests of a corrupt clique above those of America if they do.

  49. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathon Marks is a Democrat.

  50. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Julie Lucas Supporters support Democrats

  51. Anonymous said on 31 May 2007 at 3:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let me ask one question:

    How is it that FG is even close in this election?

    If he is so tainted, how come he isn’t being blown out of the water?

    Is the Democratic Process itself flawed?

  52. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 3:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Anyone want to free Alamoudi from prison?…Are there any Faisal Supporters there?”

    Wow, Anonymous…so you are actually admitting that Faisal Gill supporters should want to see convicted terrorist facilitators released from prison?? Given your strenuous anti-Julie/pro-Faisal rhetoric, you can’t get any better confirmation of the Gill links to terrorists that have been reported here. Too bad you refuse to post your name…the FBI might want to talk to you. Oh yeah…they’re already in PWC investigating other matters. Heads up Greg…you may be getting a call.

  53. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 4:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"“Sexual accusations against the young, unmarried Julie today, birkas tomorrow, dhimmi (Jews and Christians under sharia) taxes the day after that, and finally killings of Bahais and lapsed Muslims.”

    Look, we all know what the real objection to FG has been here at BVBL all along: Islamophobia.”"”"

    Since 9-11 Americans have had GOOD REASON to fear a certain militant brand of Islam. 3000 good reasons.

    Faisal is the former chief lobbyist for the imprisoned Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council. This is a group which told American Muslims after 9-11 not to talk to the FBI.

    Americans have GOOD REASON to fear the election of the imprisoned Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist Faisal Gill. Especially if the reason for electing him is that Gill’s campaign is making sexual allegations against Julie.

    The trend is farther along in Europe than in America. Did you know that in Germany a judge refused to convict a young Moroccan man of wife-beating? The judge said (I think wrongly) that wife-beating is an accepted part of Muslim culture and the German state could not interfere.

    In ignoring Faisal’s terror-lobbying past you and your Kool-aid drinking ilk are sending America down a path that, if continued, will destroy us.

    Clearly, America would not be destroyed even if Faisal’s sexual accusations against Julie worked. But it would be the start of a process.

    Again I say it. You accuse me and others of Islamophobia. But we have good reason to fear the rise of extremist Islam in our nation. It killed 3000 Americans six years ago.

    And we want to stop one of the first signs, the one that Germany has already experienced, the political acceptance of extremist Muslim actions and accusations against women.

  54. Greg L said on 31 May 2007 at 4:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon, I know who you are. If you’re going to call me a bigot, at least have the courtesy of using your common pseudonym when you do it.

    It’s rather interesting that when pointing out documented and glaring weaknesses in Faisal Gill’s qualifications as a candidate, the only response to those weaknesses are that I am a bigot and patently ridiculous countercharges that Julie Lucas is engaging in immoral sexual behavior.

    A little after noon tomorrow, readers will understand a lot more about what’s happened here, if not before then.

  55. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"”Let me ask one question:

    How is it that FG is even close in this election?

    If he is so tainted, how come he isn’t being blown out of the water?

    Is the Democratic Process itself flawed?”"”"

    A Faisal supporter on BVBL claims that Faisal has 300 Muslim delegates. They have every right to vote and good for them for participating.

    But we should realize that what to us is something very bad, namely, Faisal’s work for the imprisoned Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, may appear differently to some of Faisal’s supporters. They may believe that Abdurahman Alamoudi was railroaded.

    When you add to that a corrupt bought-off clique supporting Gill (Bill Bolling has received $13,750 from Gill, Kopko $2000) you are going to have an election that might be somewhat close.

    Even if Julie only wins by a single vote it will be a great and important victory. I will want to punish Cuccinelli and Bolling afterwards for attempting to foist this travesty on us, but that may not happen.

  56. Batson D. Belfrey said on 31 May 2007 at 4:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Since we are on the subject of infidels, infidelity, and weak accusations from crazy Gill supporters, I wonder if one of them can answer this question:

    If Gill were accused of having an extra-friendly relationship with a woman, other than his spouse, would he cite the recent Fatwa issued by an Egyption Cleric, which would give him an “out” as slong as he were nursing from her? Before the “known anon/oldie/moldy or whoever he/she is calling themselves these days starts screaming for proof:

    May. 21, 2007 23:03
    Egypt: Fatwa allows breast-feeding among adults
    By ASSOCIATED PRESS
    CAIRO, Egypt
    Print Subscribe
    E-mail Toolbar

    Al-Azhar University, one of Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institutions, ordered one of its clerics Monday to face a disciplinary panel after he issued a controversial decree allowing adults to breast-feed.

    Ezzat Attiya had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, saying adult men could breast-feed from female work colleagues as a way to avoid breaking Islamic rules that forbid men and women from being alone together.

    In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers. It means the child could not marry the nursing woman’s biological children.

    Attiya - the head of Al-Azhar’s Department of Hadith, or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad - insisted the same would apply with adults. He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation

  57. Had to Say said on 31 May 2007 at 4:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    You know, Faisal’s background is even worse than Chapman’s was and Stevies cronies stuck with him until the end. Amazing! It seems that no matter how bad someone is or how un-electable they are the far right supports them.

    If by some chance Julie loses, “Ham Sandwhich” has a couple of siblings that would like to run as a write in candidate. And guess what? They’re Republicans!!!!!!!!

  58. outsidethebeltway said on 31 May 2007 at 5:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why is it all of Gill’s supporters post anon??? Are they scared to be known Gill supporters? Is there something inherently bad about publicly supporting Gill (outside of being associated with a person affiliated with numerous terrorists and terrorist organizations)?

  59. Loudoun Insider said on 31 May 2007 at 6:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is obviously last minute diversionary tactics meant to obfuscate all of the info dredged up on Gill and his associates. Let’s move on and keep the focus where it should be.

  60. Ari Stotle said on 31 May 2007 at 6:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, to clarify your point about the pledge to support all Republicans, regardless of which candidate succeeds at the convention, MOST PW Republicans will not be supporting Gill-PERIOD. However, most committee members will not break the pledge and vote for a Democrat, they simply won’t vote at all in that race.

    However I think you’re making a different point, which is if we participate as a delegate in the convention to support Julie and Gill wins, that we’re obligated to vote for Gill in November. Did I get it?

    To make it perfectly clear, I have no intentions of ever voting for Gill under any circumstances and am willing to resign my membership from the committee prior to November if that’s what it takes.

  61. bwana said on 31 May 2007 at 7:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    You poot, I know it wasn’t moi…what is post number 1 all about?

  62. Jonathan Mark said on 31 May 2007 at 7:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"However I think you’re making a different point, which is if we participate as a delegate in the convention to support Julie and Gill wins, that we’re obligated to vote for Gill in November. Did I get it?”"”

    No, that is not my point at all. I believe the opposite.

    The pledge speaks of what the delegate INTENDS to do. Not what the delegate will do. The difference between the verbs “to intend” and “to do” is significant.

    If I intend to go to the store to buy Lucas Bread, I can state that I intend to make a purchase at the store. If the store is out of Lucas Bread then I am not obligated to buy Faisal Rat Poison. My intent was to buy Lucas Bread.

    Delegates who intend for Julie to win the convention and intend to then vote for her in November can sign the pledge. They are not obligating themselves to vote for the person who they emphatically do NOT intend to win, Faisal.

    All you are doing with that pledge is promising to vote in November for the person you vote for in June. If that is not possible because the intended candidate loses then the pledge becomes null.

  63. Greg L said on 31 May 2007 at 7:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bwana, the IP address used to make that comment was one used by you in the past. I’ll run another check beyond IP address matching if you’d like - drop me an email.

  64. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 8:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well Greg, looks like you scared off Anonymous and “Unbiased” Observer…I guess they don’t believe that you will do what you say you will if they don’t recant. Can’t wait…tick, tick, tick…….

  65. James Young said on 31 May 2007 at 9:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Re: “Loudmouthed Inciter’s” comment:

    As opposed to what? Long-term diversionary tactics meant to obfuscate the mediocre record and abilities of Julie Lucas?

  66. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 9:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, good…that means Julie has broad appeal across party lines and will be a sure winner come November. Goes to show you, many people in Prince William County have crossed Party lines when someone is the best person for the job…even for a conservative. It’s happened a lot in our political history here in PWC, of which I’m sure someone who lives in Fairfax County might have little knowledge. Which begs the question…how do you know about that? You wouldn’t be one of those Democrats who are drooling over a Gill candidacy, now would you?

  67. AWCheney said on 31 May 2007 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    I know of no loudmouthed inciter on these pages…with the possible exception of Jimmy Young.

  68. Bryanna said on 31 May 2007 at 11:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Julie was the only school board representative that voted against a new school administration building with a 30 million dollar plus price tag, money that could have been better used in the classroom. I applaud her strong and sensible position and ability to stand on her own. If Julie doesn’t win on Saturday, I will not support Gill on Sunday, I will support the best candidate for delegate and the clear choice is Paul Nichols.

    The pledge is meaningless, the evidence is clear, I will NOT allow my country to follow the path of France, United Kingdom , Malaysia and others. It’s already begun.

    All non-muslim Gill supporters need to know, you’re not a bigot for questioning your decision to support Gill, it’s not too late to change your mind and vote for Julie. Julie is as American as apple pie, we can trust her decisions.

    Our freedom is threatened on our very own soil! Our Homeland. Kopko and Corey Stewart, shame on you both, you’re a disgrace to all Republicans. Get your heads out of the sand, the dollar signs out of your eyes and do the right thing at the convention and on election day. Vote for Julie, please. If you’re wrong about Gill you will have placed our lives and our freedom in jeopardy.

  69. Bryanna said on 31 May 2007 at 11:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Islam’s 20-year plan for U.S.
    g2bulletin ^ | August 4, 2003 | Joseph Farah

    Posted on 02/06/2006 9:47:52 AM PST by the anti-liberal

    A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam’s 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020 – a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. [This article is no longer on site, but is posted here Author sees Islam’s 20-year plan for U.S. ]

    Anis Shorrosh, author of ”Islam Revealed” and ”The True Furqan,” is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

    ”The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,” Shorrosh says. ”Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?”

    1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

    2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ”Abed.”

    3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

    4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

    5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

    6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

    7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

    8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

    9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

    Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

    Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

    Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

    Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ‘’sleeper cells” have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

    10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

    11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

    12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

    13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

    14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

    15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.

    16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

    17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

    18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

    19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

    20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

    Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ”Islam Revealed” is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ”Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.”

    ”The True Furqan” is also available for viewing on Islam-Exposed.org. Shorrosh’s new website is Focusing-on-Islam.com.

  70. Anonymous said on 1 Jun 2007 at 9:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Twenty four hours to go. It is now less than twenty four hours before all delegates have to be signed into the convention.
    There are delegates sitting on the fence deciding which way to go.

    There is still some last minute vote switching going depending on what the candidates do.

  71. BVBLsrhc said on 1 Jun 2007 at 9:10 am:
    Flag comment

    I love how you all can make things up about Faisal (which 99.9% of this website is), and then have the nerve to say he is trying a diversion tactic when that is all Julie has done. She is scared she will lose and is pullinig all this last minute crap out calling him a terrorist; etc. when all your claims have been proven wrong. And I really hope this website gets what is coming to it, it serves absolutely no point.

  72. Anonymous said on 1 Jun 2007 at 9:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Here we go again. What claims about Faisal have been proven wrong?

  73. Loudoun Insider said on 1 Jun 2007 at 9:40 am:
    Flag comment

    Make things up??? Yeesh.

  74. Batson D. Belfrey said on 1 Jun 2007 at 10:00 am:
    Flag comment

    “I love how you all can make things up about Faisal (which 99.9% of this website is), ”

    Looks like one of the two Gill supporters here is posting under a new name. This dummy doesn’t know what an IP Address, Server Log, etc. is.

    If Gill could have sued, he would have. He can’t, because it’s all true!

  75. John Light said on 1 Jun 2007 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Hey BVBLsrhc, you state “She is scared she will lose and is pullinig all this last minute crap out calling him a terrorist”.

    Please give me one lit piece, one quote that came from Ms. Lucas’ mouth where she calls him a “terrorist.” A more FACTUAL statement would be that posters on THIS and OTHER blogs have called him a “terrorist”, but not once has Ms. Lucas done so.

    Julie’s sources have been the U.S. Treasury Department. If you have a problem with that, I would suggest you contact someone at Treasury.

  76. bwana said on 1 Jun 2007 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, I don’t know much about IP addresses, but I can assure I did not make the post you have attributed to me. Not only would I have signed it, it would have been much more colorful and entertaining.

  77. CONVA said on 2 Jun 2007 at 11:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Have you noticed that those that clamor for a convention never volunteer to do the heavy lifting? In primary, the registar provides the regidtered voters lists and all that is required is that the folks in the precints confirm the person voting matches the voting list. Quick and easy, plus voters do not have to give up half a day as they do in a convention. The cross over is so small it matters not.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2788