Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Jeanette Rishell Lets A Few Slip Out

By Greg L | 22 September 2006 | Jeanette Rishell, 50th HOD District | 39 Comments

Trying desperately to sound like a moderate during tonight’s 50th HOD candidate debate, Jeanette Rishell (aka “June With A Cleaver“) did manage to show some of her true colors when departing from her prepared texts to answer questions. Several times this evening she quoted Louis Brandeis with pleas for the “wealthy” to contribute as much as they can in what felt like a partial recitation of the “From each acoording to their ability, to each according to their needs” from Karl Marx. And then she followed it up with this zinger: “progressive taxation is the foundation of our democracy”.

Excuse me? Our country was founded on progressive taxation? What happened to ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’? Apparently for “social justice” advocates, marxism makes a better foundation for our country than the principles that our country was actually founded upon.

Jackson Miller commanded tonights debate with a genuine and honest portrayal of his positions, while Jeanette Rishell tried and failed to portray herself as something she is not. Perhaps the most fascinating moment tonight was when I heard the following remark from a spectator:

“That’s not the woman who visited my house.”

More to come on this evenings debate…



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

39 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2006 at 8:11 am:
    Flag comment

    She told me at my door that she wanted to get tough on illegal immigration. I took her at her word and thought she seemed like a decent candidate.

    Then I heard her last night. She dosent even agree with ddeportation of illegals. She only wants to punish employers who hire them. I couldnt believe my ears.

  2. RHarrison said on 22 Sep 2006 at 8:25 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous,

    That’s the key to Rishell. She is a nice, reasonable person - until you look at her positions and record. She led the fight to protect illegal immigrants in Manassas last year. Miller has been leading the fight to do something about the problem. That dichotomy was made very clear last night. You were not the only person to be surprised by it.

    Rishell probably shouldn’t have agreed to debate Miller. Her positions and past are just too far out of the mainstream in the 50th district - especially when compared to Miller. She would be better off sticking to one-on-one meetings where she can say anything she wants.

  3. James Young said on 22 Sep 2006 at 9:12 am:
    Flag comment

    I was particularly impressed at how she went right back to the scripted talking point about a “livability court.” I would love to know if even a word was different (not that I could discern). If there were any undecided voters there, that should’ve decided it for them. Aside from her raging socialism, of course.

    And RHarrison, I respectfully disagree. I’m pretty sure her positions would be “too far out of the mainstream” in San Francisco!

  4. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2006 at 9:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Hey folks — the Commonwealth of Viriginia and its municipalities cannot “deport” anybody. The sole authority for deportation lies with the Federal government. Does anybody seriously think that we are going to deport 11 million illegal aliens. Has George Bush, after nearly six years in office, shown any serious interest in that. The issue is really one of getting a handle on border security and dealing with the impact on our local community of illegal immigration. She is taking a reasonable and fair approach to the issue. This site, however, through McCarthyite techniques of guilty by association has tried to attribute to JR alot of views she really doesn’t have.

  5. Anonon said on 22 Sep 2006 at 4:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey, I completely forgot about the debate. Greg, if you think about it, can you post something about the candidate meet and greet on Monday night so I don’t forget on Tuesday. Yes, I have a datebook, but more often than not, it just doesn’t help. At least I look at BVBL everyday. Thanks!!!

  6. Jonathan said on 22 Sep 2006 at 5:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, it must burn you up how Jeanette convinced the audience that she is more talented and much smarter than the vacuous Jackson Miller. Miller came across as most un-Christian, implying that Jesus had no concerns for social justice.

    Jackson even admitted that Jeanette is smarter. It sounded like she won him over. Jackson is going to vote for Jeanette. What a gas!

  7. Maureen Wood said on 22 Sep 2006 at 5:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh please!! Jonathan, don’t you know what sarcasm is?
    There was nothing unchristian in what Jackson said last night. He doesn’t agree that the rich should have to pay for the poor. Thats unchristian? How would someone determine what constitutes rich? Some people are plain lazy while others are here ILLEGALLY. I for one am not willing to spend a penny on these people. How much do you and Rishell give to charity each year. This is the way to help the poor. It should not be manditory for anyone to pick up the tab for someone else.

    Yes, the government should help out some, but they already do this. Most people work hard for their money and should be able to spend or save as they wish. My taxes are so high now I can barely pay my bills. Who’s going to help me?

  8. Jonathan said on 22 Sep 2006 at 5:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Aparently you don’t Maureen. Jackson made fun of the term social justice. It wasn’t sarcasm. Jackson was truly disgusted by the thought of it. He advertised it on his face. He’s no poker player. He came across mean, not loving, not Christian. Sorry.

  9. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2006 at 6:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon 9:41 - You are right, Virginia cant deport illigal immigrants. A Federal court can. What Virginia and its municipalities can do is have local and state police trained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to have the ability to detain and prosecute aliens on immigration charges and have them deported through Federal court. Im glad Miller has brought this up.

    Immigration is happy to provide this training to local police as it helps pick up the work load. Manassas Park and Virginia should take up this offer. What a great way to at least start on this problem.

    Yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause.

  10. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2006 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    And, anon. above, JR agrees with that.

  11. Greg L said on 22 Sep 2006 at 8:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    How interesting. Obviously, some folks with a somewhat suspect understanding of the Bible’s teachings, as evidenced by their comments, start throwing around accusations that Jackson Miller is acting in an unchristian manner. Those who actually do understand the word of God, and in particular have seen God’s revealed wisdom that charity must be a voluntary act of the heart, will probably not appreciate such mischaraterizations of the Word.

    Go ahead and maintain that Jeanette Rishell, who apparently does not believe in jesus as her personal savior, is the arbiter of what Christan charity and the Bible’s teachings are. It’s bad enough that this person who is in congregation with pagans and “wiccans” is trying to pervert the Word of God during her political activities.

    This is a dangerous game to play.

  12. Anonymous said on 22 Sep 2006 at 8:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon above. You obviousley missed the debate last night. “JR” as you call her was quite clear that she opposes deportation.

  13. Other had to say said on 22 Sep 2006 at 8:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Its amazing how liberals will call conservatives names if they start spewing bible verse’s, yet its ok if a liberal starts quoting from the scriptures.

    I was told that Miller never brought up religion, but Rishell brought it up several times and was quoting scripture. Keep her damn religion to herself.

    [Ed Note: poster name edited to prevent confusion]

  14. Had to Say said on 22 Sep 2006 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    I resent the fact that someone is using the name had to say, when I have used this name for 6 months now. (8:12) Please use another name when you comment in the future.

  15. Spank That Donkey said on 23 Sep 2006 at 12:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg:
    Your comments on Marxism vs. the actual founding fathers intent are right on!

    IF the founding fathers could have seen 200 years into the future of what the Federal Govt. has evolved into, they probably would have put some heavier chains upon the Fed.

    Oh, but there was that “all rights not granted to the Federal Govt. ( in the US Constitution) will remain the domain of the individual States”…

    Ughh, we are Europeonizing… one vote at a time!

  16. charles said on 23 Sep 2006 at 2:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, what all of us want to know, because we know that it’s so important:

    DO either of the candidates have jewish heritage?

    What, it didn’t come up? Wonder why?

    :-)

    I’d probably have mocked the use of “social justice” in the context of a political debate, in the way that Rishell seems to mean it.

    If “social justice” is really a religious thing, why would Jonathan want the government doing it?

  17. Jonathan said on 23 Sep 2006 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles must not have been present at the debate because he missed the context of Jackson Miller’s social justice remarks. Jackson condemned Jeanette’s personal religious convictions and actions and clearly stated that this work was done on her personal time. There was no discussion of government involvement in these matters. If you’re looking for examples, you need look no farther than President Bush’s Faith Based Community Initiative program which, given this President’s track record, was certainly designed to funnel tax dollars exclusively (and unconstitutionally) to those “revealed” religions to which Greg refers. I reported on a local example of the dishonest tactics used by one recipient of these funds here. The unscientific designers of this program left out one simple fact. Progressive faith communities have a long standing commitment to social justice. They have programs in place and they are receiving a good portion of the grant dollars. Oops!

    Charles, your Jewish heritage remark confuses me. Etta Allen admitted that she converted out of fear, and that she would have never married George Senior if his parents knew she was Jewish. If you were at the debate, you would have known that the second half dealt with the anti-gay Marshall/Newman amendment. Conservatives seem to be saying that ex-Jewish is ok and so is ex-gay. Is that what “conservatives” want from pluralistic America? Do they want a society where an insular prejudiced majority arrogantly forces minorities to renounce their identities? That doesn’t sound like a winning proposition to me.

    Greg, the unchristian label cuts both ways. Beholders of “revealed” religion claim that you can’t be gay and Christian, and many “believers” who hold this view do so in a most unchristian manner. For example, at the debate, a lumbering jarhead hovered and made snide comments like “you can marry a woman” while I was engaged in conversation with Bob FitzSimmonds. This “gentleman” could have participated in the conversation, but he was obviously so insecure that he chose to heckle like an 8 year old coward/bully.

    Jeanette is proud of her faith and her convictions shined at the debate. There is nothing wrong with that. I wish that all candidates were so transparent. She has a well directed moral compass. Please don’t cast aspersions at her church. It makes you look stupid and bigoted. Speaking of looking not so smart, check out Jeanette’s summary of the debate on her web site. Here is a quote:

    Jackson Miller to Voters “Vote for Ms. Rishell, she is smarter than me.”

    September 21 - Manassas, VA - At this evenings debate in response to a direct question from Ms. Rishell to Mr. Miller regarding his education “plan,” Mr. Miller claimed to not remember his own statements to the press and proceeded to tell voters to vote for Jeanette because she is obviously smarter than he. That’s good advice!

  18. charles said on 23 Sep 2006 at 3:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, no I was not at the debate.

    I apologize for the “Jewish Heritage” remark. I was making fun of the fact that it was a question asked at the Senate debate, and therefore was “obviously” something people would have thought important. It was a sarcastic remark, but given that the other comments in this thread were serious, I shouldn’t have sidetracked it.

    My defense, weak as it is, is that I had wandered over from the friday silliness thread (weenie of the week) over at NLS and was in a jovial mood, and didn’t read the room correctly here.

    I’m sorry.

    I’ve read some of Rishell’s comments about social justice in the paper, and it certainly seems to me she is expecting government to implement social justice. If her comments at the debate were different, I again apologize, as I did not attend, nobody has a transcript, and the Potomac News article doesn’t actually mention Social Justice anywhere.

  19. James Young said on 23 Sep 2006 at 5:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Isn’t how the far Left attacks the application of “Christian values” in politics, UNTIL it comes to socialist welfare programs. Of course, their logical flaw lies in the fact that there is nothing “Christian” about government welfare, since the concept of Christian charity is rooted in voluntariness, NOT in the application of the coercive force of government to redistribute wealth.

  20. Greg L said on 23 Sep 2006 at 8:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan,

    So you were they guy bound and determined to corner Bob Fitzsimmonds after the debate and convince him that supporting gay “marriage” was a good idea. I think you failed.

    It’s easy to apply the unchristian label to Jeanette Rishell, because she doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. By definition, that means she is not a christian. Now that wouldn’t matter one bit in a political context, as christianity is in no way a requirement for office and is generally immaterial in a political debate. She chose to trot out a bizarre reference to chapter three of Leviticus (I believe that chapter refers to things like burnt offerings required under ancient Jewish law) however and it’s pretty bold for a non-christian to try to use the bible. She obviously does not understand it, and to use it in support of a political agenda which many feel is incompatible with biblical teachings is pretty offensive to may faithful christians. It’s sort of like me using quotes from the Koran in order to convince Muslims that they should behave in a certain way.

    I’m glad Jeanette is proud of her faith and is so eager to discuss it. That should cause an interesting and informative debate in this district, and I’m sure the UUA website’s extensive descriptions of policy statements will be of great interest to voters in the 50th district.

    Thanks for the great idea.

  21. Had to Say said on 23 Sep 2006 at 10:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    James, I hardly ever agree with you, but your last post is dead on. It’s okay to promote social justice as long as it’s voluntary. Rishell is trying to get the government to promote it. If she’s elected, which I find it hard to believe she would be, none of us would be able to afford to live in Virginia anymore. With all of the programs she wants to impliment we’ll pay so much in taxes are kids will go hungry.

  22. James Young said on 24 Sep 2006 at 12:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Read what I say, rather than what others with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas have to say about me, and you’ll probably discover that you agree with me far more often than not, “Had to Say.”

  23. charles said on 24 Sep 2006 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    I think your message is that Rishell’s bible reference did not advance her point.

    I don’t think her religion is germane to that fact. It may be one explanation for it, but we don’t really need to know WHY she was wrong, we only need to know the facts.

    I am very leery of bringing a person’s religion into the discussion, and arguments that sound like “she’s not a (insert religion here) so therefore she can’t understand (insert topic here). It smacks of discrimination, even if unintended.

    The best other example I can think of is when Ben said Miller shouldn’t use a “church choir” analogy because he was Jewish and didn’t go to church. I think looking at THAT example, you can more easily see what I’m talking about, and if you go back and read your post with that in mind, I think you’ll see what I’m saying here.

    BTW, I don’t think you can say that Rishell doesn’t “believe” in Jesus. I’m not getting into U.U. theology (such as it is), but I think you mean she doesn’t believe he is God sent to die to save us from our sins. I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) she’s said he didn’t exist, or that he didn’t have some good teachings.

  24. AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 1:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “progressive taxation is the foundation of our democracy”.

    With regard to the post itself, I believe this quote from Rishell is the most enlightening. She obviously knows little of the history of the founding of this country in saying this. The Constitution of the United States specifically disallowed “progressive taxation,” which was why FDR required an Amendment to institute it during the 2nd World War as a “temporary measure to pay for the War.” The Founders did not consider this concept to be democratic (as opposed to Democratic).

  25. Anonymous said on 24 Sep 2006 at 2:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps, before we are critical of somebody else’s knowledge of Constitutional history, we should check own knowledge. (You know, like, before you remove a splinter from your brother or sister’s eye, you should remove the beam from of wood from your own). A Constitutional Amendment that make the Federal income tax legal was passed in 1913, the 16th Amendment. No Constitutional amendment was passed during the Second World War. Now, the Federal Courts, dominated by highly ideological conservative judges, who were very much judicial activitists in the sense that they were willing to overturn legislative enactments that ran contrary to their reading of the Constitution, overruled legislative efforts to estabish an income tax. Interestingly, the courts would have allowed a tax on labor, but not on income derived from property, i.e., dividends. It would seem that some of the current tax policies of the current administration, which are very much designed to concentrate taxation on labor, but not on income derived from property, are not recent innovations. (There is nothing new under the sun). If our country was founded on the idea of equal opportunity and a fair apporionment of the benefits and responsiblities of our society, then JR is fairly reasonable in linking the notion of fair progressive taxation to the nation’s founding principles. In any event, I would not assume that the Gilded Age judges, with their avowded bias towards wealth and power as opposed to regular folks, were somehow more in touch with the founding ideals of this nation than Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. But, then that is my opinon. In any event, the fact that the Constitution got amended shows that most people in 1913 would rather thrown in their lot with TR and Woodrow Wilson than with the Robber Barrons.

    On the question of Social Justice, and JR’s biblical references, I think it is important to note that her public policy views are founded on values that are fairly familiar to most voters in the 50th District — the Biblical admonition to all of us to take care of our neighbor. While I don’t dispute the notion that such charitable impulses must come from the heart, that is to say, be voluntary, the policital process and government is the means through which we, as a community, make collective decisions. And, the idea of social justice as an objective for public policy is all around us. Medicare and Medicaid provide medical services to those in need, the public school system provides an education to all, No Child Left Behind, a Bush program, provides extra help for educationally disadvantaged children, Social Security ensures that old age does not mean a life of poverty, and we have many laws to ensure that people are not denied opportunities because of their race, creed, disability, or gender. Perhaps BVBL and his ideological cohorts don’t agree with these programs, but I don’t exactly see Republicans lining up to challenge them.

  26. AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 2:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry, my bad…1st World War, Wilson. Everything else is the same.

  27. Anonon said on 24 Sep 2006 at 3:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Having gone to the UU church in Arlington for some time, I would say that they promote spirituality as an individual, where you bring your own tradition in. It wasn’t “if there is a Jesus” more “if you believe in Jesus, this is what he said.” It wasn’t enough for me, but that’s what it was. It would be a shame to bash a whole denomination based on the acts of one person or congregation.

  28. Anonymous said on 24 Sep 2006 at 3:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Fair enough AW Cheney. Actually, if you hadn’t brough it up, I wouldn’t have checked. Hence, discussion leads to knowledge. But, if I’m right about the date of passage, 1913, I woulc characterize it as a progressive era initiative rather than a WW I initiative. Though, WW I would have caused a special need to use the new taxing authority.

  29. AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 4:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Check this out Anonymous:
    http://www.constitution.org/ica_ltnw.htm

    I found this while searching for the actual date of ratification. It’s REALLY interesting. The main site address is:
    http://www.constitution.org/cs_taxes.htm

  30. AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 6:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    BTW Anonymous, I came across this while I was searching for information regarding the date of final confirmation of the Amendment we’ve been discussing (I tried to post the web address previously and for some reason it didn’t appear)…REALLY interesting:
    http://www.constitution.org/ica_ltnw.htm

    The main site is located at: http://www.constitution.org/cs_taxes.htm

  31. Anonon said on 24 Sep 2006 at 7:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why do I get the feeling Greg is going to be coming through and deleting some comments, if not locking the comment board entirely?

    [Ed note: In process, and if necessary I’ll start blocking IP addresses]

  32. AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 7:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Don’t know Anonon…I’ve been trying to post a site address that I thought might interest Anonymous 3:44 (twice) and I think it’s stuck in moderation (probably until Greg can check out the site). Sooo, it might be a while before he can take a look at Jimmy’s string…and my responses.

  33. AWCheney said on 24 Sep 2006 at 7:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Whoops…just noticed that one of my attempts made it through. Hi Greg. :-)

  34. Greg L said on 24 Sep 2006 at 8:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hi Anke,

    Let’s be careful out there. Just remember that although everyone knows you’re capable of defending yourself, such efforts are generally unecessary here.

  35. James Young said on 24 Sep 2006 at 9:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s really amazing what you consider “offensive content,” Greg. Noting the sleazy behavior and cheap shots of your friends? I note that AWCheney’s belitting comments survived unscathed.

    You’re quite a selective champion of free speech.

    Not to worry, though. I’ve posted the comments over at my site to demonstrate your selectively self-serving commitment to free and open debate.

    And your hypocrisy.

  36. Greg L said on 24 Sep 2006 at 9:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let’s not start this pissing contest again. I was actually beginning to appreciate a somewhat cordial relationship.

    I’m sure you can debate with Anke regarding the content of her statements. I’ve seen you engage in actual debate rather well, and would rather see that here.

    Am I fair? Perhaps not. But in my house, that’s my decision to make. My server, my rules.

  37. James Young said on 25 Sep 2006 at 11:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, the only “pissing contest” was started by AWCheney, who responded to a comment made to someone else, and then started her belittling name-calling, AGAIN, when someone dared to tell the truth about her.

    It never fails to amaze me how many times those who constantly attack, belittle, and call me names other than my own nevertheless whine loudly when I dare to respond in kind.

  38. Greg L said on 25 Sep 2006 at 11:28 am:
    Flag comment

    If you review the comments, you will discover that I have deleted every comment in this useless back-and-forth from both of you. I’ve tried to be more than fair on this, and have so far been rewarded with your latest post, which I’ll decline to characterize so as not to add additional fuel to the fire.

    “She started it first” doesn’t cut it, and taking me to task for trying to keep off-topic personal attacks from cluttering my comments sections is wearing pretty thin. If you want to continue to be able to visit here, I expect you to behave, somewhat. I’m not asking for a whole lot.

    Feel free to review the Comments Policy on the “About BVBL” page if you’re unclear about what my expectations are.

  39. AWCheney said on 25 Sep 2006 at 12:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually Greg, what he considers “starting it first” was, in fact, merely a remark, to paraphrase, that I would probably agree with him more often than not as well (”Read what I say, rather than what others with a self-serving agenda and/or hidden personal vendettas have to say about me, and you’ll probably discover that you agree with me far more often than not, “Had to Say.”) if he would keep it civil. Since he’s still bandying my name about in a rather uncivil way, I thought I should point that out since you deleted my original post. You will note that, apparently, even that seemingly innocuous statement of his referenced me, specifically, if you look at his subsequent posts (which you deleted). If you’re going to delete, be thorough…and you’re welcome to delete this one as well.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2928