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.