Straight Talk from Greg Ahlemann

| | Comments (75) | TrackBacks (0)
Loudoun Sheriff Candidate Greg Ahlemann dropped in with another great comment here, in the Loudoun Farce thread:
I had a great interview with Loudoun Force. Clearly, this issue stirs emotions on both sides. Loudoun Force and I have different beliefs on how to deal with the illegal immigration problem, as I probably disagree with them on social issues as well. From a former deputy's perspective who worked 5 years in Sterling Park, the community has gotten significantly worse. My former co-workers and members of the gang unit who have seen it change would agree.

Statistics can be manipulated to show about whatever you want. For example, people might look at the # of traffic tickets given out last year compared to five years ago and say "statistics show there are more violations now". When in fact, we have more traffic deputies writing tickets now than we did five years ago. The focus on the traffic division is to write 100 tickets a month now (per motorcycle officer). In fact, in fiscal year 2006, I wrote @ 1,200 tickets, probably the most in the entire department, but my evaluation from my supervisor said I needed to "write more tickets". Huh? So use these statistics with a grain of salt. The statistics written on a piece of paper don't help the citizens feel safer.

If Mr. Simpson believed that crime and these issues were getting better as his statistics show why did he reverse his stance on the ICE issue after 2 and 1/2 years of saying we don't need it? I have stated my intentions with the ICE program. There are those like National Council of La Raza, La Voz and others who disagree with it. I don't expect their vote, but I will gladly speak with them. This is why we have elections. I am giving the citizens a choice, a new direction, in dealing with this.

On a separate note, I was wondering if Jonathan was going to correct or update the factual information about me on his website? Google my name. As far as I know unless Jonathan or the poster is anti-semitic they could put at least an update to that post. I believe Loudoun Force could verify that if needed also.

I say this because I have seen past statements from David and/or Jonathan criticizing candidates for not "updating information they know is false". I just wondered if that works both ways?

Again, if people disagree with me on my patriotism or religious views and choose not to vote for me because of them, that is your choice. Unlike many politicians (which I have seen enough of already from both sides of the aisle), I embrace who am I am and what I believe. I respect that quality in others, even when I disagree with them.

Truly a stand up guy - just what we need in a Sheriff, in my opinion.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Straight Talk from Greg Ahlemann.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


BlackOut said:

Mr. Ahlmann,

What are your thoughts on protecting the County from a potential terrorist attack? How do you plan on working and coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions? What are your plans for neighborhood policing? Do you support deployment of Sheriff's in local schools? Can you give us a run down on how you plan on fighting everyday crime?

We've heard a lot about your integrity and views on immigration. As I've stated before, I really think you need to expand your message. Two IIs will not win this election for you or anyone for that matter.

Additionally, I think the real competition for you is Mr. George. I think you need to address how you are going to deal with his advantages in education, experience, and vision.

He's getting a lot of traction stating that your integrity makes you a good deputy, and with more years of experience you could make a good Sheriff some day.

Good luck tonight in the debate, I look forward to hearing more from all candidates. More than just views on immigration.

Dan said:

We are not the only questioning the accuracy of LCSO data crime. Supervisor Burton recently requested Simpson reconfirm the accuracy of LSCO data presented in a recent report to the BOS.

Mr. George's record of two years here, three years there, two years here, is a big red flag. This cannot be assumed to be experience.

BlackOut said:


I am all with your statement about making sure facts are correct. I support an effort to confirm the LCSO data as being correct.

On the same vein, I think you need to review Mr. George's resume. Your assumption that he was a job hopper is erroneous. I recall you bring this up back in mid September during the blog discussion on education and experience. It's obviously an important issue to you.

If you recall, I looked into your claim and noted the following facts from Mr. George's website:

"...5 years of experience as a patrolman; 2 years as a detective; 6 years as a sergeant; 8 years as a Lieutenant. 9 years of private industry investigative services management experience."

Mr. Ahlmann needs to hit this head on. To me it appears Mr. George's career reflects a significant amount of experience. Any "job hopping" happened when he was promoted or took on jobs with additional management and oversight responsibilities.

I really think this is a weakness for both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Ahlmann.

Hence, my suggestion Mr. Ahlmann move to other areas to try and gain advantage.

Dan said:

BlackOut - Do you mean this, from his website ?

Maryland  State Police  1978 – 1980

1980 - 1983 Patrol Officer, McLean District Station

1983 - 1985 Detective, Criminal Investigations Bureau

1985 Promoted to Sergeant

1989 Assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration

1991 Promoted to Second Lieutenant and assigned to the patrol division.

1993 Assigned to the Criminal Investigative Bureau

1995 Assigned to create the Gang Intelligence Unit

Recording Industry Association of America 1999 - 2003

I give him the benefit of the doubt that his promotions were based upon merit. In civl service, there are various reasons for promotion and reassignment, doing a good job is just one of many.

BlackOut said:


Yes. That looks like the source I used. It looks like the content of his website. I also used this:

Director of Training / Regional Coordinator 1999 - 2003
Recording Industry Association of America
Washington, DC

* Responsible for creating, managing and coordinating training programs directed towards law enforcement on state, local and federal levels. Additional responsibilities include training new employees and investigative consultants on policy and procedures and training employees on effective training techniques.

* The regional coordinator includes the management, coordination and supervision of anti-piracy investigations in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. This includes reviewing and approving written cases, expense reports, and investigative consultant invoices.

* Effectively liaison with member company representatives and all members of the law enforcement community to increase awareness and active participation in anti-piracy enforcement.

Maryland State Police 1978 – 1980

January 1978 – June 1978 Maryland State Police Academy, Pikesville, MD
June 1978 to August 1980, Trooper assigned to Barrack “L” Forestville (Patrol)

Fairfax County Police Department 1980 - 1999
Patrol Officer to Second Lieutenant
Fairfax, Virginia

1980 - 1983 Patrol Officer, McLean District Station

1983 - 1985 Detective, Criminal Investigations Bureau, Narcotics Division. (Investigation of narcotic related offenses)

1985 Promoted to Sergeant: Worked as patrol supervisor and street level narcotics unit supervisor.
Received Investigator of the year award, from the Daughters of the American Revolution

1989 Assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration as a group supervisor for the Crack Cocaine Task Force. Responsible for major drug investigations and the supervision of detectives from many Northern Virginia police departments and special agents from the DEA. Received Certificates of Appreciation from the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

1991 Promoted to Second Lieutenant and assigned to the patrol division.

1993 Assigned to the Criminal Investigative Bureau as the supervisor of the Criminal Intelligence Division. Responsibilities included supervision of the electronic surveillance unit, the crime analysis section and the intelligence unit assigned to monitor possible threats and disseminate the collected information to the appropriate agencies.

1995 Assigned to create the Gang Intelligence Unit, a pro-active unit that gathered intelligence, conducted criminal investigations involving gang related activity and performed tactical enforcement operations.

The Gang Unit in Fairfax County continues as the model unit for successful enforcement and intelligence gathering. It currently collects gang intelligence from over 33 participating jurisdictions.

Vice President of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Gang Intelligence Network

Certificate of Appreciation from the FBI.


* Throughout a 22 year law enforcement career, numerous instructional courses provided by various institutions and law enforcement academies to maintain a law enforcement certification as required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services.

* Bachelor of science Degree in Political science, with a criminal justice minor

From State University of New York at Brockport.

2Lt. Mike George explains gang mentality to the public in Fairfax County

* Associates of science Degree in police science
From Suffolk County Community College.

Thank you for looking at it. Others should also look at Simpson's and Ahlmann's for comparison.

arwillow said:

As far as George's experience is concerned, despite his experience, he has been totally absent from any REAL law enforcement capacity for nearly 10 years. A lot changes in 10 years time. I'd prefer someone who has been on the front-line for the past 10 years than someone who hasn't been in law enforcement for as many years recently. Although, if Loudoun County starts having a real concern for anti-piracy and wants to crack down on that, then George may be the man because that's all he's been doing for close to the past 10 years. Somehow anti-piracy enforcement to Sheriff doesn't seem like a logical progression or next step.

It would be a relief to know that Pepe's and the bowling alley have their ASCAP, BMI and SESAC papers in order.

ACTivist said:


The logical progression is to move "up" in law enforcement. Moving from Fairfax police to sheriff appears to be a retirement move. As I have stated in another thread; Fairfax police to sheriff (there have been quite a few) never works out for the people.

You sound like you are on the campaign staff for George. And his credentials are impressive. Let me sight what I see:

*Started as a state trooper in MD. (an anti-gun state).

*Went down a notch to work for Fairfax County police (a county run by anti-gun mindset and a county that believes that they can take care of their citizens). Side note: Fairfax Police was persuing county action to BAN firearms from police stations.
*Wanting to take a county/police mindset to a sheriff position.

This doesn't work; hasn't worked before and doesn't look good for the citizens of Loudoun. Why didn't he stay with Fairfax County? The "old hands" of Fairfax couldn't hardly wait to reach retirement to get out. I know why. Do you? We haven't allowed Loudoun to "police" our county and I personally don't want to start that anytime soon. We don't need it and we aren't ready for that. It will only makes us like Fairfax which is why I left that county 35 years ago.

George can always put in an application to Sheriff Alhemann for a position. I believe he does have some attributes that could help in certain areas. Just tell him to leave his options open.

BlackOut said:

Mr. ACTivist,

We have different opinions. For the record, I am not on Mr. George's campaign staff. In fact, I completely believe the Sheriff's race should be non-political. It's all about the best man, with the best experience, and the best vision to do the job.

I am not sure why you are making generalities about work locations. I do not see the relevance of making sweeping claims about MD and VA police forces.

I will say this, as someone that has a relative in the Fairfax County police and was "actively" involved in the shoot out at the Chantilly station, I have some insight into the Fairfax County Police mind set. You'll recall the incident, to police officers died that day.

Your damn right they want to ban firearms from police stations. Maybe you should talk to the police officer's families that lost Mothers and Fathers before you chastise the effort. I have and I can tell you they strongly support any effort to ban guns at police stations.

This is coming from police officers that are pro-gun and will defend there right to bear arms.

But I digress, how you somehow think this has relevance to Mr. George I am at a loss. I think you are grasping at straws.

arwillow had a more reasonable response. One to ponder.

arwillow said:

I have been following the Sheriff's race fairly closely. I also have checked out the "report cards" on George's web site and on Ahlemann's web site showing how the candidates stack up on the issues against each other. A couple things struck me:

First, George appears to only focus on longevity of career in law enforcement, touting his tenure in the number of years he was on the force (20+ years). He conveniently neglects to expound upon the fact that he has not served in any law enforcement capacity for almost a decade. In my estimation, absence from that kind of experience and the level of skill and understanding that comes from being involved on a daily basis in that line of work/service is very significant.

Second, now compare that to Ahlemann. Ahlemann has served in Loudoun County, knows the beat of the community and the issues the county is facing. George has not. Ahlemann has a working knowledge of the Sheriff's Department's inner workings having been there the past 10 years giving him an advantage to lead that office - he knows the personnel, knows their strengths, understands the dynamics of the department. That alone gives him an advantage over George.

In this type of race, experience, real, hands-on experience, matters. We need a Sheriff who can lead starting day 1...George would need a period of ramping up and dusting off after being gone for nearly 10 years. Can Loudoun County afford to wait for a learning curve of its next Sheriff simply because that Sheriff is out of touch?

Dan said:

Some very key points were made during the Sheriff's candidates forum, two of which stuck out like sore thumbs.

Candidate George mentioned twice that if he were elected, he would come in and review the training and education histories at LCSO. I find it rather odd that "performance on the job" does not factor into his equation. This sounds exactly like the election year housecleaning that Mr. Ahlemann warned us of. This also sounds like a Fairfax County approach.

Mr. George mentioned that he sees our number one issue as Homeland Security. The million dollar question is this - how can one state that Homeland Security is the number one priority, and imply that illegal aliens are a minor problem in the same breath ?

Illegal aliens ARE Loudoun's number one Homeland Security issue. Greg Ahlemann seems to grasp that concept quite clearly.

Dan said:


"Your damn right they want to ban firearms from police stations."

Let me first preface my remarks by stating that I am not trying to marginalize the impact of the events at the Fairfax substation. Everyone is saddened over the loss of dedicated public servants.

But, the shootings took place outside in the parking lot did they not ? I would categorize this ban as political. Also, do you really believe that breaking yet one more law would have deterred the shooter?

Or are you saying this policy will work in our police precincts as well as it does in our schools ?

ACTivist said:

"...I have and I can tell you they strongly support any effort to ban guns at police stations.

This is coming from police officers that are pro-gun and will defend there right to bear arms."

Dan explained it aptly. Let me just add that I don't need police officers defending "their" right. I need them defending mine. This might have been a slip on your part but it is the Fairfax mindset none the less.

I don't grasp at straws. I do know what I am talking about. I may not know George personally but the locations that he has worked dictate rules to him by the county/state. Maryland IS NOT gun friendly and has a SET way of doing things. Fairfax IS NOT gun friendly and has a SET way of doing things. If you work and comply in those environments you have to AGREE with those policies and rules. We don't need that in Loudoun.

BlackOut said:


It did happen in the parking lot, which is fenced and gated. Effectively a part of the precinct. I've spoken to officers involved in the shoot out and also family members that lost spouses. I too know what I am talking about.

Dan, I was at the debate. You are misquoting Mr. George's message. He included experience with his evaluation of current officers. Twice he said, experience, education and training. Sounds reasonable to me.

Were you taken aback as much as I was at some of Mr. Ahlmann's comments? I was disturbed when he said he had made numerous arrests based on the fact someone couldn't speak English and he assumed they were here illegally. I was also disturbed by his comment about kicking children out of schools to fund new jails.

I may have misunderstood his meaning or he was nervous under pressure, but those comments linger with me.

Sorry, BlackOut, but you need to listen more carefully. The audio recording does not reveal Mr. Ahlemann saying anything about "arrests" of people because they could not speak English.

I will try and have the whole thing posted soon, which should raise the accuracy level of the ensuing discussion.

BlackOut said:


You might be right. I just read the quote as stated in the Post, according to them he said, "I know that many of the people that I arrested initially who had no identification, couldn't speak any English -- I'm just going to guess that they might have been here illegally."

That action still concerns me.

BlackOut said:


If you could include his closing statement that would be helpful. I found it very interesting.

BlackOutq said:

For reference here is the Post article I referred to:

I particularly like George's comment, "We can't look at a certain culture and say they're gang members," he said. "I've worked Asian crimes. I've worked Nigerian crimes. I've worked Russian mafia crimes. There's crime in every culture and every race. . . . We need to target a crime, we don't need to target a culture."

Reflects his experience. Does anyone know if Ahleman has experience with the Russian mafia, et al? I thought Ahlemann was weak on the white collar issue. So was Simpson for that matter.

Linda B said:

"I know that many of the people that I arrested initially who had no identification, couldn't speak any English -- I'm just going to guess that they might have been here illegally."

So you took that to mean he arrested them *because* they couldn't speak English? Seems like a willful intent to misinterpret someone's remarks to me.

BlackOut said:


Not necessarily. I was disturbed because it reflects Mr. Ahlemann's assumption that if people aren't speaking English they are here illegally.

That's what disturbs me. It may not bother you.

Part of this is to make sure the facts are straight, and I appreciate Joe's effort in bouncing this back in forth to get it straight. Sounds like Joe is going to check the audio to make sure this is, in fact, what Ahlemann said.

prince said:

You guys should all be proud of yourselves and your candidate. He is one stand up guy - just what we need in a Sheriff. I am feeling the fuzzy bunnies in my tummy just thinking about him as Sheriff.

Dan said:


You are putting words into Mr. Ahlemanns mouth.

"I arrested someone from Lucketts" does not mean that residency was the cause of the arrest.

Are you really sure Loudoun is rife with Asian and Nigerian crime ? Maybe if Mike George had been in touch with what is going on in the streets over the last 10 years he might have spoken from a different perspective.

Gre Ahlemann did not say anything about kicking kids out of school. His remarks about illegal alien students was an accurate representation of the irrefutable economic burden of illegal aliens. LoCo schools spend $15 million on ESL. Some estimates put the percentile of illegal aliens in our schools at 6%. That's 6% of 50,000 at $12K+ a year. You do the math.

BlackOut said:


Are you talking to me? :)

I've not decided between Simpson and George. I pretty much have ruled out Ahlemann, but I am reserving judgment until reading Joe's pending post.

BlackOut said:


I am not sure I am following your reference to Lucketts. (?)

Rife with Asian and Nigerian crime? Not that I am aware of but the comment was made in reference to white collar crime. Therefore, I think George excels over both Ahlemann and Simpson in the area of fighting white crime. That I am certain is happening within Loudoun County. Don't you agree?

As for the ten year issue. You've brought that up before. From what I heard George say last night, it sounds like the past 10 years for George has been directly related in fighting crime, just not in uniform. I was impressed to hear that his current job has taken him all over the country and all over the world working with numerous police and other law enforcement agencies. I'd say the contacts he's made there would serve him well in running our Sheriff's department. I don't think Ahlemann or Simpson reference any extended contacts like those George mentioned.

For me this extends George's advantage over Simpson and Ahlemann on experience. Not only did he have a full and rewarding career in uniform, but he now also has ten years of working and gaining insight into multiple approaches to law enforcement.

I don't think you can get that on a motorcycle in Sterling. :)

Dan said:


Mr. George has it wrong, we do need to target a culture, one of lawlessness. That's what law enforcement does..

Linda B said:


(1) According to the quote, Greg didn't say "aren't speaking English" he said "couldn't speak English." (2) He didn't say "assume they are," he said "they might have been." (3) He mentioned a lack of identification in addition to the inability to speak English. (4) If I recall, the point of this statement was not to explain his methodology for determining whether someone is here legally or illegally anyway. Rather, it was a precursor to explaining how better dealing with arrestees who turn out to be here illegally could benefit Loudoun.

Regarding Dan's analogy... "I arrested someone from Lucketts" : "I arrested someone who couldn't speak English" :: "I arrested someone because they are from Lucketts" : "I arrested someone because they couldn't speak English."

Takes you right back to those good ole days of SATs, doesn't it?

prince said:

And all fun and jokes aside, Asian crime is a serious issue, particulary in terms of gangs. I think if you check the Loudoun data you will find this to be true.
I wonder why Alhemann hasn't raised this issue, given his analysis of population growth statistics and their relationship to increases in crime. Isn't the Asian population growing just as fast, if not faster than the Hispanic? And wasn't the first big sting in Sterling Park after the most recent zoning changes against an Asian owned house that was filled with workers who were basically slaves in the kitchen of the resteraunt of the homeowner?
Although saying "Asian" makes me cringe given that it is a category to broad to discribe such a hugely diverse population, but that is the way the census does it.

prince said:

And the African, and yes the Nigerian population is growing by leaps and bounds in Loudoun. Check the census.

Dan said:


Let me restate then, Loudoun is awash with white color crime. Maybe we do need a task force to investigate all the gas stations, retail shops, restaurants et al for white color crime. Not to mention all the racketeering that occurs at the farmers markets. Should I refer to Mr. George as Mr. Ness ?

My Lucketts reference was that the arrest was not due to circumstances or facts discovered after the fact.

"He included experience with his evaluation of current officers."

I said "job performance" was noticeably absent, which is quite different from experience. Visit a school and you may understand what I am talking about..

Greg Ahlemann said:


Your bias is comical. Why don't you just say you are a George supporter and then ask real questions. First, because you seem very uninformed about anything to do with law enforcement basics, you give your opinion on who should be sheriff? The fact that you are impressed by Mr George yet you are so blind to the legal process is not a glowing endorsement for him. I'll help you a bit. When an arrest is made for a criminal offense, like Assault and Battery, that individual is taken to a magistrate to determine if probable cause exists that the person did that offense. Now I know this part may be hard for you but there is no law against not being able to speak English. So has any deputy in Loudoun arrested someone and taken them to a magistrate and obtained a warrant for not speaking English? The answer is NO. I have arrested people who did speak english (for an actual crime) who advised me they were in the Country illegally. So from that stand point I have some first hand experience to go on.

After reading the "experience" piece, I believe that the Dems should have chosen John Isom to run. He, like Simpson, has 12 years as a Sheriff. I concede to both Mr Isom and Mr Simpson on the experience issue. Unfortunately, Mr Isom's experience did not get him re-elected. Mr Simpson's did not keep him from getting defeated by me at the convention. Simpson won because at one point he had vision. I won for the same reasons. If people only look at experience we would have a bunch of 90 year old sheriffs through out the state.

I get along fine with Mr George. I have no reason to distrust him. Now Mr Simpson should have left and run as an independent BEFORE the convention and no one would have blamed him. But when you lose and fail to keep your word, as a Sheriff, you have nothing to run on. Very sad.

I do enjoy the campaign advice though. People like Blackout gave me "advice" before the convention. These people try to get their candidate some traction by this type of talk.

The reality, whether you like it or not, is that George has no platform. He was chosen by the Dem's and must walk the party line. My favorite part of the debate was George's full support of a tax payer funded day labor site. I've knocked on thousands of doors and this is not what people want. This statement should be what the media is talking about but they realize this will damage their candidate. Oh, by the way, all that education and investigative experience from George, he spelled my name wrong on thousands of his hand outs until my 18 year old campaign manager (with no degree yet) pointed it out. Great work! The management experience he has for me is also incorrect. He should have researched, with the investigative training, what I did before coming to the Sheriff's office in 1996. I'll let them work on that a while.

As I said last night, Reagan proved that experience and lack of management training do not make or break the man. The good new is when I'm being attacked it helps me realize I'm right on course. Thanks for the encouragement.

G Stone said:

Mr. George also needs to read the constitition. He said clearly during the debate and was taken to task by a rabble rouser in the audience that the seperation of church and state was written in the document. He was asked what page ? Where ?

After the debate he made the same claim yet again to said same rabble rouser.

As we all know the constitution has no such language. The term comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a religious group in Danbury.

How is this guy going to defend the constitution if he does not know what the dam thing says. He overheard some nitwit talk about the seperation of church and state being enumerated as such and took it as gospel. Now he is running around repeating it at public forums. This is pretty basic stuff Mr. George.

Mr. George is a nice fellow, but not our best choice for sheriff.

G Stone said:

Based on your comments are you sure you didn't Black Out during most of the debate ? You have a comprehension issue or you need your ears cleaned.

G Stone said:

Let's talk about being tone deaf for a second if we can.

After all of the acrimony surrounding the Herndon site for the last two and a half years Mr. George stands up and advocates for a day labor site in Loudoun County. Sheriff Simpson whos ears are completelyrusted shut jumps on the bandwagon.

Set aside all of the evidence that says day labor sites attract illegals like moths to a flame, the citizens do not want days labor sites, period. These guys are politically tone deaf,have been in a coma, are too stupid to know they are wrong or just don't care what the vast majority of citizens want. Whatever the reason it is not good. These are not attributes you look for in a sheriff. Call me crazy, but I like my sheriff to have a clue as to what the citizens want.

G Stone said:

Let me know if you want me to go over that little math exercise I did for you on the LTM site. It would be no problem to run through it one more time just in case.

Can you do Little Red Corvette ? I love that song.

BlackOut said:

Wow, head out to a High School football game and the place gets lively. I will try and catch up tomorrow. Greg thank you for your comments and responses.

But I must say decisively, Dan you are a bigot!

Do you have any idea what white COLLAR crime is? What the heck is WHITE COLOR crime? I assume it's the opposite to black or brown crime, but I don't dare guess, I would not want to get that close to your mentality.

When I first read it I thought you had mis-typed and I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but then you used the term a second time. I re-read your post several times and it is clear to me you were using white COLOR crime, with an understanding by you that there is such a term or thing.

Joe, you have an interesting group of followers here. Greg you best be careful about the type of people you are attracting to your campaign, it's not a pretty sight.

David said:

Is Dan commenting as a representative of Help Save Loudoun? I hope not, for your sake, Joe. Help like this, you don't need.

Dan said:


"But I must say decisively, Dan you are a bigot!"

And you arrived at this conclusion over a couple of typos ? My fault, I admit, I was chewing gum, you busted me Blackout. Maybe this bust also qualifies you as the Dem Sheriff nominee ? I am very sure that you knew exactly what my point was, or maybe not given the Lucketts comment had to be explained to you a few times..

David, Dan is commenting as Dan. What led you to this inference ? Or are you just fishing ?

Billy said:

I don't think Greg is correct in his analysis of the experience issue. Can anybody name a police department that employs 400+ people and would consider hiring a former officer with no police supervisory experience as its chief? I am confident that nobody will be able to find such a department because a well informed hiring authority (i.e. city council, board of supervisors, etc.) would only hire a candidate with a proven ability to perform the duties of a chief law enforcement officer.

This election is not about past sheriffs' abilities to get elected. This is about which of the three candidates would do the best job as sheriff. And I don't think that having a polarizing platform is what the sheriff's race is about. It's more about who is trustworthy, who is a proven leader, and who would use good judgment in running a large law enforcement agency.

Greg, please don't keep us in suspense -- what did you do prior to being a deputy that is relevant to management experience?

prince said:

Greg- funny you would criticize George over the constitution (which was a really dumb BTW) but overlook Alhemann's budget development work which involved violating a Supreme court ruling by booting illegals out of the public schools in order to save enough money for the jail. So, we kick the kids out of school, ask the School Board to spread some of the resulting joy around to the Sheriff and there you have it, problem solved. New Jail!
I am going to throughly enjoy the defense of Alhemann,s terrible preformance.

Linda B said:

Prince, I had hoped to ignore you from now on, but alas, cannot let this last comment go. I did not think Greg was advocating "booting" kids out of school. He was explaining to a reporter who had said that he wanted to talk about something other than illegal immigration (i.e., the cost/crowding of our jails) that you cannot talk about one without the other. Because the cost of having illegal aliens in our community impacts our budget in so many ways.

If we were to decrease the illegal alien population (via a variety of legal methods, including sending a message that Loudoun is not a haven county), and we were therefore to decrease the number of children in our schools who are here illegally by, say, 100, we would save $1.4 million (because it currently costs us $14,000 per student per year to run our schools). The cost of a new jail.

I will say one thing, and that is that the savings probably wouldn't be a full $1.4 mil as there are admin costs in the school budget that would not go down proportionately with each student that left, BUT ... the costs for these students would probably be higher than for most because they would most likely be enrolled in our costly ESL programs.

Regardless, we are talking about a substantial figure, and I would say Greg's sample number of 100 kids is most likely low. And that only accounts for the cost of schools, not the many other services being provided to these families.

Do I understand why they are here? Yes. Do I think our society can continue to afford to support them? No. And if something isn't done about the problem, it's just going to get worse.

We need law enforcement leaders who have the will to enforce our laws.

prince said:

Linda, we also need law enforcement officers who have a clear understanding of the limitations of ICE and also what local jurisdictions can and can't do, and more importantly someone who is sufficiently wary of the grey area to avoid a costly lawsuit that would easily wipe out the savings of the kids who have freed up taxpayer funding by leaving our schools.
I wasn’t there and have only had the benefit of all the buzz and what the papers reported, such as this one from LTM on the school thing
“He said that 4,000 students in Sterling schools do not speak English in their homes, and that while he can't say that all 4,000 of them are illegal, 100 of them may be. By not spending money to provide those 100 English as a Second Language courses, Ahlemann contended that taxpayer money would be saved.
“There's your money for the jail,” Ahlemann said.”

I have to say that it is clear that Alhemann is not electable as he is clearly not politically savvy enough to give decent sound bites, instead quotes that provoke gasps and headshaking even among conservative Loudouners.

Even your repair work is flawed Linda. The question was about a real time solution to a shortage of funding and the best he was able to give was a hypothetical scenario that required a lot of “if this happens than that will happen”. And do you really think the school system is going to let go of any savings, even if that were to happen?
"Do I understand why they are here? Yes. Do I think our society can continue to afford to support them? No. And if something isn't done about the problem, it's just going to get worse." Frankly, that is not enough Linda. As a matter if fact it's just getting old.

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

I see a feild day of ignorance displayed here.
Greg's intent is fantastic, and he's shaped changes that needed to occur in the county, all without yet even stepping into the office itself.
The Sheriff NOW wants ICE/287G.
Does anyone think that he'd have eventually come around without Greg's prodding?
Linda B, your last post is golden. It is the only post in this thread thus far that accurately describes what I saw, and offers as close to a non-biased report of what ACTUALLY occurred, and what was ACTUALLY said that night.
The rest of you need to chill, because you are bringing about a general conception among your peers (that's the voters) that Greg represents some splinter group of spanish-descent-bashers.

In defense of Mr. George, experience didn't stop for him over the past ten years. He's not propped up in a rocking chair somewhere. It's just idiotic to come here and talk about how he has been out of the game for ten years. But from this small pond, I suppose someone had to be that myopic.
There's a world out there, gentlemen. And if you can achieve great things out there, you'll probably do pretty well in this fishbowl, too. Why go off on that point? Because I've been retired for roughly five years, and I still keep up with aspects of my former calling. Enough to possibly surpass some of the younger wards in that profession today.
As technology in his current proffesion has accelerated, you just cannot speak to his current level of readiness without putting a microscope on his daily requirements. What he knows, what he studies, and what he has to catch up on to be one step ahead of people who willl go to efforts to get around rules that were created "ten years ago".

As far as the work center in the county..I've thought long and hard about it. If it's taxpayer funded, I don't oppose having them all come to one location to be seen or worked that day, but if we're paying for it, they'd BETTER CHECK for LEGAL status or arrest and detain for Immigration.
What I heard Mr. George say at one point is that he believes in enforcing 100% of the laws.
I want to be very clear here. I've contributed a sizeable donation to Mr. Ahlemann's campaign. I think he has a bright future in this county. But "some" of you dolts have got to stop dragging him down by broadcasting complete ignorance.
Take a page from Linda. That's haw you get a fair message out there. That's how your guy gets a fair shake with the general public.

Stephen G. Nichols said:

Having retired after 29 years in the game as a Senior Sergeant, I have a pretty good idea of the workings. A couple of things come to mind while reading the above thread.

I must say that, although street experience is invaluable, I would never want to work for someone that had experience but no management skills, and vice-versa. Working as a harness bull is a good thing but you gain no significant experience, from that position, in managing 400 people. The Sheriff needs to be an effective manager (with plenty of street experience) who can control not only his or her troops but also the community's needs for general or targeted enforcement.

You absolutely can not expect that a person who has gained the necessary management experience during his tenure at the Fairfax Police, or wherever, has recently spent a significant amount of time actually getting his pants ripped in street fight arrests. As you can not expect the person with recent street experience to have gained the necessary management experience anytime recently.

So the question becomes: Do I want a sheriff who has the street experience and has recently honed his management skills, who is probably capable of leading a 400 officer force? or Do I want a sheriff who claims 10 years' experience on the street and has no significant leadership training (on- or off-the-job, it makes no difference)?

Without letting either candidate's stance on immigration, white-collar crime, or whatever else, taint the discussion, this really comes down to who is more qualified to lead a police force as large as we have. The rest will eventually be dictated to the sheriff by way of community and BoS pressure -- he will not actually make those decisions in an insulated world. After all, he wants to get re-elected in a couple of years. So, I suggest you take the variables out of the equation and make decisions based on leadership and experience qualities, not on whether one candidate invokes God's blessings on anything or states that he intends to end illegal immigration on his watch. For the most part, many of those things are beyond the real control of a county sheriff. The experience and leadership abilities are not.

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

Prince, I know someone else with a reading comprehension problem. He can't read the written word either.

prince said:

Yes, well, you can ignore me, boot me off the site, but meanwhile, here is another one, this one Leesburg Today,

"Ahlemann, who has made illegal immigration a top issue in his campaign, told the audience that if he had grown up in a poor country, he too, might head to the United States illegally.

"It is the issue in this race," Ahlemann said, offering anecdotes about people he has arrested over the years who don't speak English. "I'm just guessing they were illegal."

He said improved crime statistics cited by Simpson are not comforting to potential victims.

"Seeing that on a piece of paper doesn't make a single mother feel safer," he said, expressing concerns about the changing demographics in eastern Loudoun."

Don't worry, Ken, I am watching you closely. So what exactly are those quotes supposed to prove, in your mind?

Linda B said:

The papers are going to use whatever "sound bites" they choose. Why the heck weren't you there, if you're so worried about this?

Again, the point of Greg's remark was to tell the reporter that all of these issues are intertwined, not to make a specific case for how to raise money for a jail.

In any case, I don't want a sheriff that knows how to produce good sound bites. I want a sheriff that will effectively enforce our laws.

"Frankly, that is not enough Linda. As a matter if fact it's just getting old." Um. OK.

prince said:

my point is that they prove nothing, butleave a distinct impression in the minds of the thousands that, like me were not in attendance, but unlike me do not pour over the local blogs to get an "explanation" of what he really meant. It seems like a real PR problem.

And Mr. Look Out, Ive Got My Eye On You and I am About To Whip Out a Can of Whoop A** Budzinski, can you please explain why you think I am Ken ? And who Ken is while your at it?

prince said:

Linda- you will not get that Sheriff if he can't get himself elected.

Dan said:

If I am reading these comments correctly, many here are supporting Mike George based on his management experience. I shall assume you supported Bush-Cheney over Kerry-Edwards for this very same reason.

In my employment history, I have worked for many with management experience, but very few with management skills. I don't assume a direct correlation here either. Drawing such a conclusion would be a mistake. The Sheriff doesn't manage 400 people, as it is a hierarchical organization. The Sheriff must have the integrity to take responsibility for those 400, and in this election integrity is Ahlemann.

Then there is one who believes George should be Sheriff based upon his penchant for sound bites. Is this another way of saying "I support the Democrat with minimal substance"?

Don't Fairfax Loudoun, first and foremost in our Sheriffs office.

ACTivist said:


Stop "stealing" my lines! Get your own. It does work well in your last post, though. Okay, you're forgiven.

Stephen G. Nichols said:

Dan -

" this election integrity is Ahlemann."

Why is that? Please explain.

"...there is one who believes George should be Sheriff based upon his penchant for sound bites."

One, sir, does not a movement make. Why would you draw ANY conclusion from one person's comment, much less a generalization?

Stephen G. Nichols said:

One more thing, Dan.

"Don't Fairfax Loudoun" Does that mean that you're actively working against the rabidly pro-growth, developer-driven members of the current BoS as well -- those who tried to Fairfax Loudoun these last few years?

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

Generalize me, Dan.
Ahlemann is inded a good man, but he's got a couple of loonies loose here.
Mr. Stone and Linda are still here to balance it out, thankfully.

And Prince, you surely must know about IP addreses and the like, after the throwdown of another over at Tooconservative.

Billy said:


Mike George has drawn the endorsement of several respected people and organizations in the law enforcement community. I think this speaks for his effective management abilities.

Dan said:


Salient points bear repeating. No, I am not Joe Biden in real life..

Dan said:


"One, sir, does not a movement make. Why would you draw ANY conclusion from one person's comment,"

There was no plurality expressed in the paragraph you are referring to.. Last time I checked, one was less than 2, which implies one is less than 3, 4, or 100..

Stephen G. Nichols said:

Whatever, Dan ...

The overall tone and presentation of your previous posts led me to believe, however mistakenly, that you were presenting that paragraph as a generalization.

And the condescending wording of your post at 11:24am is so like those of one particular planning commissioner that I'm now wondering if you are she, in drag. There really is NO reason to speak to someone like that. I asked one simple straightforward question (Why is that? Please explain.) and one more nuanced question about generalizing. I'd appreciate it if you would restrain your anger when dealing with me, unless and until I do something that merits that type of treatment.

Dan said:

"I'm now wondering if you are she, in drag. "

"There really is NO reason to speak to someone like that."

This is consistent...

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have expressed no anger toward you, neither will I do so. Sarcasm toward your earlier statement, emphatically yes.

And a good day to you too sir.

BlackOut said:


I must take you to task on your post defending Greg on his "leave no align in school" stance. The quick answer is we have no choice, it's a federal law. I am not sure why someone who is running for Sheriff doesn't understand this.

Second, I found this comment interesting:

... the costs for these students would probably be higher than for most because they would most likely be enrolled in our costly ESL programs.

So I assume you are not a fan of ESL programs. In fact, it appears you (and Greg (?) I don't want to put words in his mouth) are against ESL.

I have an intriguing question, did Greg support ESL classes at his father's church, and if so did they check those in attendance for citizenship?

Linda B said:

BlackOut, I would like to respond but do not understand this sentence: I must take you to task on your post defending Greg on his "leave no align in school" stance.

Please explain. (Either I'm missing something or maybe the sentence is missing some words?)

Anonymous said:

I am sorry LindaB,

My post is a little obscure. I was referring to your September 27, 7:49PM post.

I summed up your post to a reference I made up "leave no align in school". I was probably trying to be a little too cute for this discussion. The substance of my questions and comment stand.

BlackOut said:

I am sorry LindaB,

My post is a little obscure. I was referring to your September 27, 7:49PM post.

I summed up your post to a reference I made up "leave no align in school". I was probably trying to be a little too cute for this discussion. The substance of my questions and comment stand.

BlackOut said:

I am sorry LindaB,

My post is a little obscure, and align=alien. I was referring to your September 27, 7:49PM post.

I summed up your post to a reference I made up "leave no align in school". I was probably trying to be a little too cute for this discussion. The substance of my questions and comment stand.

BlackOut said:

I am sorry LindaB,

My post is a little obscure, and align=alien. I was referring to your September 27, 7:49PM post.

I summed up your post to a reference I made up "leave no align in school". I was probably trying to be a little too cute for this discussion. The substance of my questions and comment stand.

(Joe, I am most likely caught up in your maintenance upgrade and I am having difficult getting this on the thread. This IS the correct post, please delete previous ones. Thank you)

Linda B said:

BlackOut, before taking someone to task for a comment, perhaps you should be sure to read the comment more carefully.

I wrote: "I did not think Greg was advocating 'booting' kids out of school.... If we were to decrease the illegal alien population (via a variety of legal methods, including sending a message that Loudoun is not a haven county), and we were therefore to decrease the number of children in our schools who are here illegally...."

Meaning: Greg (and others) are proposing measures that would ultimately decrease the illegal alien population in Loudoun. This would in turn naturally result in a decrease in the number of children who are here illegally who are in our schools.

Re: my comment about ESL classes being costly, it was merely a statement of fact. I am in fact very much in favor of ESL classes ... for immigrants who have come to this country legally.

BlackOut said:


Thank you! I am glad you support ESL. I also agree with you if, we decrease the illegal immigrants we will save money. Where we differ, I think, is the way to stop them. It is my opinion we need to stop them at the border. Scaring the s*** out of them, while they are in Loudoun, is not my idea of how an American should act. You may agree, I am not sure.

I accept your view, but I must say it sounded entirely different when Greg commented in person. I hope Greg was caught off guard, and shares your compassion for this issue. Please, let's not make this about the kids.

Linda B said:

BlackOut, I agree we need to stop them at the border. However, since the federal government has shown a lack of will to do so, it is up to localities at this point to protect their own interests as they are able.

Most of the proposals I am hearing for Loudoun are reasonable and, while they may well result in *discouraging* people from coming to or staying in Loudoun, I don't think anyone is saying we want to scare people.

Greg Ahlemann said:

Black Out,

For the first time ever, I agree with you. Stop it at the border. Good luck with voting in candidates at the national level to do it. Or on the other hand, we could vote, at the local level, for candidates who want to force the feds to do it. When candidates for state and national office see us elect candidates who take action on this issue they may actually take notice. Why? Because they want to be re-elected. You don't think people in Richmond took note of what happened at the Loudoun Republican Convetion?

I've spoken with Sheriff's and candidates from across the state. The consensus seems to be that the change will be at the local level and work it's way up. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but "wishing" doesn't do anything to help the situation in Loudoun.

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

THERE IT IS!!! Finally. Thank you Greg.
That's the situation in a nutshell. The Feds won't do anything. The Governor isn't doing anything.
So if local communities band together (ala the "Culpeper Coalition" and FORCE the issue, the State and the Feds will have little choice but to follow suit sooner or later, as they realize that the majority is fed up with the lack of action at the Federal level.
Kinda like Bush (GW) going to the UN. Either you deal with Sad-ham (GHWB pronunciation used here -- it translates "gutter trash") or we will....

BlackOut said:


Thank you for staying engaged in this debate. I am not surprised we agree. In fact, I would think most in Loudoun share our views. The Federal government has let us down, and it is up to future voters to register there opinion on this via a strong showing at the national polls.

We may differ on local immigration tactics but I do think we've found common ground.

Now, where I do think we differ is on the level of effort, interest, and tax dollars, immigration should take.

I gathered from a previous post of yours, you're not fond of taking advice from others like me, but as I stated weeks ago, to win ALL of Loudoun you need to focus on more issues than just immigration.

In Ashburn, I can tell you, we are more concerned about vandalism, car break-ins, property distruction and traffic violations. Do not get me wrong, there are certainly bigger issues, but that's what is happening outside of Sterling Park. We don't see the issues you highlight from your perch in Sterling Park.

Additionally, I think gangs are concerns of my neighbors, and after that terrorism preparedness.

As I stated weeks ago on this forum, I wanted to hear your vision on other subjects other than immigration. All I heard on Tuesday was a response to every question being related to immigration issues. I think that is short sighted.

My opinion.

I certainly don't expect you to agree or to accept my statement, but the fact is Loudoun is larger than Sterling Park.

If folks want to take experience and education out of the equation, I think it is myopic to think the only thing left to consider is immigration.

Had Enough said:

The years of experience inside the beltway in our government has produced corporate multi-millionaires that support corporate entities not leadership.

Some do not get re-elected and but return to DC in their new career, "Lobbyist." Main objective, same objective: protect the portfolios.

Others will be propped up in chairs, "Comatose," just as Strom was and kennedy and others will be.

Experience? Maybe not the best thing.

A conviction to clean up corruption, enforce the law and work for the citizens best interest is the best thing.

I do believe that john warner for the first time in his career felt the pressure. He basically did as he pleased for many years. With the internet, we can gather information, communicate and pass information as never before.

There has never been a time where the citizens had so much access to what their "leadership was doing" and could get so involved.

How many of you knew that mccain was censured by his peers in AZ?

ACTivist said:


You have this condensending "air" about you and I don't feel sincerity in your comments.

Where did you live before Ashburn? Are you part of the crowd that "migrated" from Sterling Park and Sugarland (the 2 oldest communities) towards the west? That original migration was due to the unavailability of larger square footage homes. After Cascades and Countryside the migration moved to Ashburn, Purcellville and Lovettsville. This wasn't for house size. This was done because of the affordable "older" houses in the early communities were being inhabited by immigrants (and many of them illegal aliens) causing over-crowding problems as well as a lack of upkeep. Especially those that were closest to Herndon. Wouldn't it appear to you that when an area becomes "undesirable" to some, that moving away from it only prolongs the inevitability of it catching up to you again?

That may be why you are having this property damage, vandelism and break-ins. It may also be because you helped allow the problem in the east fester while you had your head in the sand. Now this is a generalization of the word "you" but, Blackedout, I would like to know how well some of what I just said fits YOU!

The west may have problems with kids running thru their groomed lawns on bicycles or spray painting "I luv u Wanda" on a power transformer. ALL of Loudoun has the problem of illegal aliens and its associated costs. It is not just happening in the east anymore and this is the major issue of the time (ask Simpson or George-crime is on the wain). Let's take experience, education and mis-placed compassion out of the picture. Myopic to you maybe, major to others. The illegal alien issue and its finality starts at the county level.

BlackOut said:


No condescending attitude here, just words from a concerned Loudoun Citizen.

If you must know, I've lived in Loudoun County for over 20 years. I've never lived in Sterling or Sterling Park, but I find the area full of wonderful people. I disagree with your opinion that Sterling is undesirable. In fact, I am a huge fan and supporter of the Lower Loudoun Football League and a Boy Scout Troop in Sterling Park. I have been an active volunteer with both over the last ten years. I have a lot of friends in Sterling, I moved our business to Sterling, and I am in Sterling most every day of the week. You might consider my a Sterling outsider but I would say that is not a correct assumption.

You can call it myopic or you can call it major, but I absolutely disagree with you that Sterling is being abandoned because "communities were being inhabited by immigrants (and many of them illegal aliens) causing over-crowding problems as well as a lack of upkeep."

I am certain there are some that have left because of this but for you to make a leaping generalization makes me question other things you've said.

ACTivist said:


It's back! Here's my answer to you; you can question anything that I may say. That is your right and I would expect you to do some research on the matter to find the truth. I meet many new people on a daily basis and with them and those that have left this area, I will tell you that immigrants/illegal aliens/poor upkeep are the biggest reasons for the moves. I still live in Sterling Park and I am "in-tune" to it on a daily basis. Oh, yeah. Thanks for "visiting".

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here