First – Janet came across as dishonest and evasive. As I attended their 27 Sep debate at Springfield Government Center, I can attest to the fact that she did say she would have to “waffle” in her answer…there were two dozen witnesses to her statement – and in the 1 Oct debate to deny or say she was misquoted or taken out of context indicates she lacks candor and integrity. And there is a blog that said that Janet won this debate?!

Second – Janet demonstrated her reckless disregard for the wellbeing of children and lack of understanding of reality/common sense. Her view of “common sense” gun control is true lunacy…criminals do not follow the law – that is why they are criminals. What she proposes is “feel good” gun control legislation that will have the opposite effect of its intent. Should she successfully implement these laws, such as to ban weapons from public places or places with children (daycares, shopping malls, etc), the result would be to leave ONLY THE CRIMINALS with weapons…so how is banning weapons from law abiding citizens good or “common sense” idea? Why does she want to support criminal rights so that ONLY criminals can carry weapons in bars, daycares, schools and government buildings? Hmmm…good for children? Just like in DC where guns are banned and kids are gunned down all the time…perhaps she wants to bring this level of violence across the Potomac to Fairfax County…

Third – Janet demonstrated that George Burke should be running for office in her place. Burke appeared to have a much better understanding of the issues, and not only defended her but even spoke for her in several instances…way to go George!

Agreed. O’Brien pleaded at the HOD-51 with the powers-that-be not to select (i.e., rig using overvotes) Gill.

Unfortunately, Ken Cuccinelli travelled to Woodbridge on 3/31/07 to endorse Faisal Gill. You can see a picture of Ken doing so in the upper right corner of GoodbyeKen.com. Charles Reichley of the Two Conservatives blog took the original pictures.

You can also see a picture of Ken Cuccinelli at the 3/31/07 event with fellow Gill endorsee Bill Bolling and lobbyist and convert to radical Islam Grover Norquist.

Ken Cuccinelli has acted very wrongly in supporting Gill for the HOD-51 nomination. I can never trust him.

Ken at the debate came up with this story about how NVTA couldn’t tax under the HB3202 that Cuccinelli voted for, and it is a lie. HB3202 would have levied massive taxes on commercial development in NVTAs district, with NVTA receiving the funds.

Ken is quibbling over an irrelevant point here. Ken would say that the taxes going to NVTA were not being levied by NVTA itself, merely by others on behalf of NVTA. For the person paying the tax that is a distinction without a difference.

Could an honorable person support Faisal Gill for the HOD-51 nomination? The answer is NO. Ken Cuccinelli is therefore dishonorable and undeserving of his office. Ken’s doubletalk on the matter of the NVTA real estate taxes which he voted for in HB3202 confirms Ken’s dishonorable nature, however.

I sensed he spoke the truth, and was keely aware of both what he fought for and why and explained why he did what he did when he needed to compromise. He clarified the misrepresentations with facts, something Olezek never did. Ken supports schools, opposes taxes, and clearly has a stronger and experience position on “illegal” immigration. Janet just seems to say what she thinks people interested only in schools and more social program taxes, cleaning up the environment (which is important, via the chesapeak act as an example and fact that Ken supported. The only issue I heard him support that I did not agree with was government intervention of abortion issues. This is an area I believe government does not belong, except to required safe health standards and to allow women (and men) have a choice on abortion. Somehow the rights of men get missed here. Half of that egg is mine and I should have an equal rights say in what happens to it. Ken I am against you on believing life begins at conception for the following reasons. 1. I don’t think most religious people including Ken understand the science of eggs and cells. They are handicapped by their “obligation keeper” faith and can’t understand anything else, except what the minister tells them (abortion prohibition is not in scripture, it is man-made church doctrine, thou shalt not kill is violated most often by Christians and by our countrie’s top Christian, by sending troops to war. So why does and egg cell mean so much to a Christain who values the life of an egg more than the lives of our sons and daughters at war? 2. I don’t think religious people understand when God comes into a human being. It is after people accept Christ (second birth), not before conception, during conception, after conception or after birth. God does not leave an egg cell, baby or teenager, and come back later as a rebirth. God is not in the egg cell, the baby or the unaccepting teenager or non-christian, so why should it matter what happens to a cell? The problem with pro-lifers is they project the image of a baby (oh how cute!), onto the egg cell and dream of what it could be, not what it is. Far better to save my son’s and daughters actual life, and the life of my wife, than to save the life of what might be. What about all those poor unconceived egg cells that could have been babies. 400 eggs cells have to die, just to have one lucky one get fertilized. If we valued egg cell life that much we would insist all egg cells get fertilized and never get removed by the body, because of the babies we could watch tem grow into. Ken is in a philosophical trap because he is afraid of death as are all Christians who are emotionally stable only if they can believe a promise to live forever in an afterlife is real. For them to believe otherwise is to not value life itself. 3. God solves that problem for me by letting me know he only cares about my soul, not my physical cells. To be this form of belief is to belive in Christ as a “liberator” not a “promise keeper”, concerned only about man-made doctrinal rules (covering your face, not holding hands, not dating, wriggling on the floor to show your faith, killing people to show your support for pro-life, sending sons and daughters to war in the name of Christ, to show your support for Christian religion as the only religion, etc). A “liberator” means as long as he has my belief , nothing else is important, especially an argument about aborting egg cells. Christ was a Liberator. God could care less about egg cells, only people and misguided doctrinal rule keeper’s do and want to impose their beliefs on all others by making oppressive laws in government. That’s what brought us the oppressive Church of England, killing of non-believers or non-believers in “our doctrine” and a history of killing crusades, sanctioned and started by the Popes of history. Sorry about the diatribe, but everytime I seem a smart man believe in Pro-life issues, I know he hasn’t intellectually thought it through enough to know the relationship with the Father, is the only law and desire of God. I have permission from Him, to say I could care less about the church, abortion, evolutional ignorance, inconsistant science and religion (science is what it is, regardless of what you believe) and what men of doctrine (and thousands of religions) think. Sorry Ken, I’ll vote for you but I disagree with you in that one area.

I thought it was funny the way Jonathan Murray bragged to me (back on September 23) of how they were going to publicize that TV debate. Gee, I wonder what happened?

Go where your help can be the most effective…forget Fitzsimmons and Cuccinelli…help Jay O’Brien.