Sometimes, You Just Have To Call The Lunatics Out

I haven't said anything about the campaign against Faisal Gill here. Frankly, a lot of it just seems silly, little more than guilt by association and smears. Moreover, while some may have a point about Faisal's electability, and a reasonable debate can be held over the relative merits of Faisal versus his opponent, Neabsco School Board member Julie Lucas, it is utterly clear that such reasonable debate is not to be found on a website owned by a man named as a defendant in a lawsuit in which the Plaintiff is represented by Faisal's law firm.

I run hot and cold on Greg Letiecq and his creatively- and tackily-named website. He has done much to expose the apparent scandal regarding Rack and Roll in Manassas, and an apparent campaign by Manassas Park authorities against Dave Ruttenberg and his business. Yet, other times, he seems to associate with the sleaziest elements of the Prince William County GOP, and many be the first Virginia blogger who's managed to get himself sued for his over-the-top behavior.

But recent posts on his website make it utterly clear that those attacking Faisal Gill --- and I mean, those other than those who are deeply and irrationally resentful of his role in Steve Chapman's nearly successful Republican primary campaign against Harry Parrish, who allowed himself to be rolled into an unnecessary tax increase by a Democrat Governor --- have utterly jumped the shark by equating all associations and second-hand associations with people who know people who know people who have been involved in terrorism must equate to support for terrorism. That Greg is indulging them seems to be little more than his deep resentment over the fact that Fasial's firm has dared to provide legal representation to Steve Chapman in his suit against Greg and his website over the smears that Greg promoted in his campaign against Chapman.

Here's a recent exchange on Greg's website, which I reproduce because I remain optimistic that Greg will recognize the insanity of those who also oppose Faisal's candidacy on this basis, and will ultimately edit/remove the posts because of their embarassing and foolish character:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 1 Feb 2007 at 11:29 pm:

   “”"it is those who are attacking Faisal with charges upon which he was cleared”"”

   Faisal was the imprisoned terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist in 2001.

   That makes Gill a terrorist sympathizer, because Alamoudi is a terrorist serving a 23 year sentence in a federal prison.

   No one forced Gill to work for Alamoudi as a lobbyist. Gill chose to do so as an adult and now he is facing the consequences.

   That is appropriate. Support for terrorists like Alamoudi has consequences for those who provide the support.

This was my response:

1. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 9:30 am:

   Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.”

   Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.”

   And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years. Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.

   Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.”

   ‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.

   I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right? And you supported Bill Clinton, right? Guess that makes you a “perjurer/adulterer/rapist sympathizer.” Then there’s Dan Rostenkowski. Let’s add “tax-evader sympathizer.” Oh, and let’s not forget “check-kiter sympathizer.”

   Unless you can make the case that Faisal knew Alamoudi was a terrorist money-launderer, your claim is absurd.

Jonathan Mark favored us with this response:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:47 pm:

   “”"Wow, Jonathan! That’s quite a stretch. From lobbyist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.””"”

   From chief lobbyist for a terrorist in 2001 to “terrorist sympathizer.” I.e, Gill sympathized with Alamoudi the terrorist. That is why he was the terrorist’s lobbyists.

   “”"Gee, I’d better do an inventory. I represented Redskin Terry Orr in 1993 and 1994. A few years later, he pled guilty to and served time for a financial crime. Guess that makes me a “financial-crimes sympathizer.””"”

   Were you Terry Orr’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in the criminal activity? If so, what did you do on Terry Orr’s behalf as his chief lobbyist? I need more info before I can determine the propriety of your actions as Terry Orr’s putative chief lobbyist.

   “”"And I’ve known Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist for years.”"”

   That might explain why you support Gill. Norquist is Gill’s mentor. Without Norquist the candidacy of Faisal Gill would be a joke.

   “”"Since they are associated with Jack Abramoff, I guess that makes me complicit in his crimes, too.”"”

   You were never Abramoff’s chief lobbyist. Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist. No matter how much James Young tries to insinuate that Young is as guilty as Gill, James Young stops short of providing information that Young was ever a convicted criminal’s chief lobbyist while the convicted criminal was committing his crimes.

   “”"Then there was the guy with whom I shared fellowship in a cigar shop who later shot his wife and murdered his stepson, right here in Prince William County. Guess that makes me a “murderer sympathizer” and a “wife-abuser sympathizer.””"”

   Were you the murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal activity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

   “”"‘Course, I can get in my WayBack Machine, and note that, on my way to elementary school in Northumberland, I used to walk by a guy who tried to kill his sister-in-law. Guess that makes me an “assault sympathizer,” too.”"”

   Were you the attempted murderer’s chief lobbyist while he engaged in criminal actitity? Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

   “”"I wonder what your inventory would show? You’re a Democrat, right?”"”

   WRONG!!!!! I am no longer a Dem because where I live the Dems almost all support the odious Rep. Jim Moran. I was twice denied membership in the Lee District Democratic Committee. The first time they rejected me they even pocketed my $35 application fee.

   I voted for George Allen last year. Don’t assume what you don’t know, James Young.

   “”"And you supported Bill Clinton, right?”"”

   Absolutely, and I gave money to both of his presidential campaigns and to his wife’s first senatorial campaign.

   “”"Guess that makes you a “perjurer”"”

   Alamoudi is in jail for 23 years for terrorist money laundering. Bill Clinton was never even indicted for a crime, let alone convicted. YOU ARE BLIND TO ALAMOUDI’S CRIMES! You are blind to the fact that Alamoudi sits in a jail cell. Alamoudi’s crimes are proven.

   “”"/adulterer/”"”

   I don’t even want to go there. Suffice it to say that the PWC Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too, would be much smaller organizations if adulterers did not join.

   “”"rapist”"”

   This bores me. Bill Clinton is not running for the HOD-51 nomination. Faisal Gill is. We have questions about what Gill did on behalf of the imprisoned terrorist Alamoudi while Gill was Alamoudi’s chief lobbyist.

   You can respond to our reasonable questions by railing against Bill Clinton if you like. It is not much of an answer though.

And then, he offered this:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 12:53 pm:

   “”"what is next? you gonna accuse president Bush(senior) for supporting Talibans.”"”

   No, because Bush senior is an old man and is not running for office. Someone else could reasonably accuse him, though.

   “”"He had taliban delegation visit white house.”"”

   Unusually bad grammar, suggesting that English is not the author’s first language.

   “”"Talibans were “freedom fighters”, they got thier training,weapons and funds from usa. So should we hold papa bush responsible for supporting them?”"”

   Yes. However, Bush senior is retired from politics and I guess is in his 80s. I have no interest in criticizing him in 2007.

At this point, I came to the ineluctable conclusion that Jonathan Mark is insane, so I didn't respond. Nevertheless, he felt the need to attack anyone who challenges his sleazy tactics:

1. Jonathan Mark said on 2 Feb 2007 at 2:26 pm:

   James Young seems very involved in this matter. How well does he know Gill? Is he or has he ever been representing Gill in any criminal or civil matter?

   I am not convinced that James Young is sufficiently distant from Gill to have clean hands in this matter.

   At this point we do need to ask James Young: Asim Ghafoor’s contracting firm was Gill’s nominal employer when Gill worked as the AMCs chief lobbyist. Ghafoor is currently Gill’s law partner.

   Does James Young oppose Ghafoor’s proposals to create an Islamic state in the US, with Moslems at least subject to Sharia law and non-Moslems reduced to dhimmi status?

   Is James Young at all concerned that Ghafoor was Gill’s nominal employer while Gill worked for the AMC in 2001, and is Gill’s law partner now?

   If Gill becomes a Delegate then would Gill’s law practice, and therefore that of his partner Asim Ghafoor, benefit? Is James Young comfortable assisting Asim Ghafoor, directly or indirectly, in his attempts to institute sharia law in the US?

   Has James Young ever met Asim Ghafoor? Alamoudi? Gill and Alamoudi together? Has James Young ever discussed Gill with Norquist? Norquist with Gill?

This was my response:

1. James Young said on 2 Feb 2007 at 6:47 pm:

   Jonathan, all that you managed to demonstrate with that last comment is that you’ve jumped the shark.

   But thanks for confirming what most reasonable people should have suspected all along: you’re insane.

Well, I don't indulge the insane, and the only rational thing that Jonathan seems to believe is that Jim Moran is "odious" (no argument there). On the other hand, at the rate he is going, Jonathan seems anxious to join Greg in the dock as a defendant against a slander lawsuit.

But if Greg is going to indulge these insane fantasies, it is little wonder that Steve Chapman's lawsuit was filed and, at this writing, remains pending.