Tuesday, July 17, 2007

just for the fun of it.

While GBK rarely concerns facts or reason, I have to admit a certain odd fascination with the type of propaganda used, and how seemingly useful but unrelated information is presented as if it refutes some other statements of known fact.

In the latest, GBK takes some interest in my post from yesterday correcting a commenter over at BVBL (something I'd much rather do in the privacy of the comments section, if BVBL wasn't so scared of having people comment on his site).

In his post, GBK says:

I understand that by speaking the truth about terrorism and overvotes we are ruining a child's hero-worship, but Gill's more naive supporters have to grow up someday.

I suppose I am now a "Gill supporter", as he is the official nominee of the Republican party for the 51st district, and will be a fine addition to the republican delegation in Richmond. I've never been one for hero-worship though.

The most exciting match I ever saw was Hulk Hogan (in the yellow tights and boots, above) vs. Randy "Macho Man" Savage for the hand of Ms. Elizabeth. Some claim that rassling is fake, just as some claim that the overvote-ridden HOD-51 tally was fake.

I'm not surprised that GBK is a person who would pay good money to watch professional wrestling, but even the staunchest Lucas supporter would have trouble comparing a staged match with a lawful, duly called and executed election. I don't think GBK has much love for republicans in general, or our conventions in particular.

It is never too late to reprove Faisal Gill's childish enablers yet again. Perhaps the most voluble in support of Faisal "Terror Lobbyist #1" Gill is the blogger Charles of Two Conservatives. Some have alleged that Charles has a major man-crush on Faisal, but I don't really know. Charles does have children, after all. Charles says:

The AMC was not involved in terrorism or in support of terrorism,

But Customs agent Brett Gentrup stated in his 9/30/03 affidavit for continued detention of Abdurahman Alamoudi (which was granted) that:
31. Although Alamoudi is not named on the corporate records for AMC beyond 2000, I have probable cause, beyond what is set forth on the “Guest CV,” to believe that Alamoudi remained in a leadership capacity with AMC...

Even if true, and it was simply the statement of one person, not subject to challenge, it does not refute my statement of fact that AMC was not involved in terrorism. Alamoudi did not use ties to AMC to support or perform terrorism.

Charles continues:

and was not so involved at the time of Gill's work as a political consultant for the organization.

In 2001 Gill was the chief lobbyist for the convicted and imprisoned Alamoudi's now-defunct American Muslim Council. Gill's title was "Director, Governmental Affairs."

GBK keeps saying Gill was the "chief lobbyist" for the AMC, but the AMC had lobbyists directly in their employ, while Gill was a political consultant hired through a consulting firm to provide liason services to our government. SO he wasn't the chief, and was hardly a lobbyist in the strict sense of that word. Even the title GBK states belies the notion of being the chief of anything.
(Still Quoting Me!!!!)

Faisal won the convention.

Gill won HOD-51 legitimately just like Hulk Hogan {deleted GBK's fascinating trip down memory lane}

Those who claim that pro rassling was fixed and that Hogan was not the legitimate winner are like cynics who object to counting votes in HOD-51 precincts where there are more votes than voters. I understand that by speaking the truth about overvotes we are ruining a child's hero-worship, but Gill's more naive supporters have to grow up someday.

Which is the crux of the matter. These "cynics" object to counting legitimate votes because the process cannot account for several votes which may have been cast in the wrong precinct. Gill did win the election, and no amount of posturing otherwise will change that simple fact. Under any reasonable evaluation Gill obtained more votes than Lucas. Only by throwing out a large number of known legitimate votes can Lucas be said to have prevailed.

In Florida in 2000, Gore's team at one point realised that to win, they had to throw out votes of Bush in addition to manufacturing more of their own votes. So they tried to have large numbers of military ballots discarded for trivial, technical, and even wholly manufactured reasons of "illegitimacy", none of which actually cast doubt that the votes were from valid voters, but some of which were of the same technical nature as the complaints about a voter putting a ballot in the wrong precinct.

Fortunately, a good though liberal Jewish man named Joe Leiberman would have none of it, and managed to get the Gore team to back off the disenfranchisement of hundreds if not thousands of our fine men and women in uniform simply because of some minor discrepancies.

One can hope that the Lucas camp will understand the parallels, and realise that a "victory" eeked out by discarding the known valid votes of over a hundred delegates, voters from the district who showed up and sat through hours of the convention to vote, would be a Pyrrhic one at best.

Meanwhile, I don't mind people talking about overvotes, but they were far too few to effect the outcome of the election, and according to Robert's Rules should be ignored in that case -- and if that were NOT the case, Robert's Rules requires a ruling of the convention that the overvotes effected the outcome (no such ruling was made or called for, nor was any appeal made to request such a ruling). And if such a ruling HAD been made, Roberts Rules would require a re-vote, not a disenfranchisement of the voters.

In fact, there was a rule in place at the convention for a re-vote which could happen under certain circumstances -- so there was a ready remedy if the Lucas camp really believed that the overvotes in the precincts by themselves would make a difference. They chose not to request a re-vote, and only appealed the results after the convention was ended and a re-vote was impossible, in the hope they might get entire precincts disenfranchised in order to take what they couldn't win by vote.


Anonymous said...


You are falling into the John Milton's trap. When you write a long refutation of Comrade Doctor Mark's propaganda, you argue his points (giving them currency) and Comrade Mark will take a portion of your writing, turn it around and use it in another clever false attack. Remember, Comrade Mark is, in my opinion, a gifted Soviet Era styled propadandist. Stick with the easily teachable message that you hit upon: The Lucas supporters are trying to disenfranchise over one hundred voters'votes because of a few "over votes". This is simple. Easily understood. AND TRUE. Always ..REMEMBER...Truth is paramount.

Anonymous said...

That would be "propagandist"

Anonymous said...

It also plays to the readers' innate sense of fairness without giving Comrade Mark anything to twist.

Anonymous said...


BVBL might have kicked you off of his blog, but I was going to post a comment over at "Howling Latina" and discovered folks can't post over there unless you are part of her "team". She's squawking about NYT v. Sullivan. She's afraid it might be over turned and everyone will have to speak truth or get sued. Maybe she needs some lawsuit insurance?

Anonymous said...


It is rather odd that Comrade Dr. Mark keeps alledging that you have some sort of "man-crush" on Gill. Perhaps Comrade Dr. Mark is projecting his own "ambivalent" feelings about women on to you? Comrade Dr. Mark's screeds do bring to mind Harold Adrian Russell (Kim) Philby,Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt, who were euphemistically known in the intelligence community as "The Cambridge Rump Rangers".

Charles said...

In a post over at GBK, the author bemoans the impression his words have given to some commenters to my blog:

Gill-Enabler Calls Me A Communist Homosexual Spy

This has obviously left him upset and a bit despondent:

If I am a communist spy then Faisal Gill is a suicide bomber.

You can almost hear the pouting.

Now, Now. If it makes him feel any better, I don't think he's a communist, a homosexual, or a spy.

I hope that helps. Most of us are used to people calling us names, usually because those people can't think of anything intelligent to say. I assume that's why JM is reduced to the homosexual references he makes (although I have to admit he does take a LOT of shots at homosexuals, and was particularly rude about the homosexual community in some comments about Jeff Dion and his homeowners association).

Still, I think we should leave JM be, we obviously touched a nerve and we can't have him crying in his keyboard, he might receive a mild electric shock.

Anonymous said...


Yieeeeoooowww, Comrade Dr. Mark certainly is touchy!! I was just speculating..using the word "perhaps", about his constantly using "man-crush", when refering to your defense of Gill. But he really seems to have gone off of the deep end. In fact, I never called him a "communist spy" that is purely his interpretation of what I said. In fact, when refering to his wacko screeds, it is the smarmy and priggish British public school air permeating his writing style that reminds me of the "Cambridge Boys", not the fact that the intelligence community has a rather colorful moniker for them. Again, Comrade Dr. Mark projects his his feelings and motivations on to others, and his efforts into name-calling. This is percisely what John Milton did in response to the the writings of Claude de Saumaise, as I have wirtten about elsewhere on your blog.

I must confess, I did have some inkling about Comrade Dr. Mark's probable response. I think I could be accused of shamelessly promoting your blog, since the good Comrade Dr. draws attention to it on his popular website, while at the same time demonstrating, in my opinion, his lack of mental stability. I particularly enjoyed the photo of the folks in white garb. Where does Comrade Dr. find the time to gather all of his material? I can only speculate that he is either independently wealthy, or is kept by a hard working woman. If it's the latter, she has my sympathy.

Anonymous said...


Since I have never had the pleasure of sitting down and looking Comrade Dr. Mark in the eye while talking with him, my posts concerning him are conjecture, opinion, and speculation based solely on my interpretations of his various blogs and screeds. And, if I have made a mistake about my opinions of the good Comarade Dr. Mark, my apologies to him in advance for anything I might have gotten wrong. If he is married, I still feel sorry for his wife.

Anonymous said...


Oh, by the way. I refer to Dr. Mark as "Comrade Dr. Mark" in honor of his mastery, in my opinion, of a style of propaganda that was prevalent in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, not because of his ideas about who should control the "means of production".

That said, he certainly doesn't run his blog GBK with any semblence of freedom-of speech. Both Comrade Dr. Mark and Howling Latina require any potential contributor to their blogs to register and , in effect, become a member of their "approved" team or a "party apparatchik". So not only is Comrade Dr. adept at Soviet styled propadanda but also he does protect his "means of production" (Party Organ of Speech) which is reserved only for worthy "apparatchiks". It goes double for HL. I leave you to decide whether they are promoting free speech.

At least Greg over at BVBL has to get mad at you to ban you from his blog. These other two only allow "approved" contributors.

Charles said...

His registration requirement is the only reason I post my observations here instead of in his comments.

I have no desire to register for his site (or for Raising Kaine, another site that requires site-specific logins).

Nor do I desire to provide any secure information that might be required to register. I know sites I post to already get my ip address and other information, but I don't feel like contributing to that effort.

On the other hand, as a journalist I tried to register to comment over at Democratic Underground, but they didn't want me. That's something the liberal moonbats and Greg Letiecq have in common :-)

Anonymous said...


I won't post anywhere that requires registration. That is prior restraint on freemdom of speech, in my estimation, and I won't support it.

Jonathan Swift was an early proponent of Irish freedom and wrote many pamphlets supporting the poor Irish folks who he observed when he was Dean of St. Patricks in Dublin. The British Crown repeatedly tried to indict Swift's printer, who in the best traditions of "OMERTA", refused to give Swift up. See: Jonathan Swift, Giant in Chains by Frank Stier Goodwin,Liveright Publishing (1940).

Likewise, John Wilkes, ESQ. also tweaked the British Lion's nose with his writings. He was repeatedly tried for sedition and libel of the King by the British government for his attacking George III and promoting our colonial independence. The result being our Double Jepordy Clause in the Bill of Rights.

Anonymity has it's place in our excercise of freedom of speech. Those who don't respect it (sorry James Young), DON'T KNOW ITS HISTORY.

Jonathan Mark said...

I understand perfectly your objections to registering in order to post. I feel exactly the same way.

So why do I require registration on GoodbyeKen.com? Because my old site GoodbyeJim.com had no registration, and was plagued by a single IP address posting under multiple names.

I am not on Blogspot, running my own independent server instead. So if you guys have some better suggestion on how to stop one IP address from posting under multiple identities I am all for it.

Charles said...

Some people use TypeKey, I don't know if you can use that from your own server or if that's a wordpress-specific thing.

I haven't trained myself in web hosting, so I can't tell you what else you could do.