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

Chuck Caputo: All Felons Are Democrats

By Greg L | 10 August 2009 | Fairfax County, Jeanette Rishell, Virginia House, 50th HOD District | 28 Comments

Tonight’s little event of “The Brigades” featuring Ben Tribbett (of Not Larry Sabato), Chuck Caputo (representing the 67th HOD District), and our own Jeanette Rishell ended up being a whole lot more interesting than I ever could have imagined.  I really wish I could have had video there, because the things coming out of the mouths of these candidates are truly unreal and would have made for absolutely great video.  Instead, I’ll just have to tell you about the absolute inanity on display tonight.

After Ben’s presentation of the doom that awaits Democrats this election cycle, Chuck Caputo had fifteen minutes to dig himself further into the hole he finds himself.  After admitting that without crossover support he can’t win, and that voters in his district are furous with the Obama administration and he’s getting some anger from his constituents, he got a chance to take some questions.  One of those was a question about restoring voting rights to felons, and Caputo jumped all over this idea.  He then attacked Republicans for opposing the idea, saying “Republicans don’t want felons to vote because they know they’ll all vote Democratic.“  Really.  So all felons are Democrats?  I guess Caputo is in good company.  What a blithering idiot.

Jeanette Rishell followed, being introduced by the same Harry Wiggins who had been fired* by Paul Nichols for attacking the School Board, who said Rishell’s opponent was a “right-wing extremist” parroting Rishell’s ineffective and ridiculous rhetoric from 2006 and 2007.  Rishell claimed to be the “family values candidate” (albeit not referring to her campaign claiming ownership of pictures of used condoms discarded in toilets, or hiring people who have advocated putting hard-core porn in university libraries) and claimed to have knocked on 22,000 doors in the district.  She only started on July 15th, so she’s been knocking a thousand doors a day?  Yeah, right.  You can’t even throw literature out the window of a moving vehicle that fast, and we’re supposed to believe she’s bloodying her knuckles on over a hundred front doors an hour, ten hours a day, seven days a week?

The kicker came when Rishell got the same question about felon voting rights.  Jeanette Rishell (who attends the Bull Run Unitarian Universalist “church”) trotted out that as a christian, her faith requires her to restore voting rights to felons, and that’s after Caputo pointed out that all felons are Democrats.  She didn’t dispute that evaluation one bit, but went on her typical impression of a rich bleeding-heart liberal from Manassas Park.  Yeah, felon voting rights is something I’m sure she’s willing to talk about within her own district, to the people she’s actually asking to vote for her.  No wonder Ben Tribbett said that evening that the 50th District will never be won by a Democrat.  Rishell has poisoned the waters so badly that it’ll take decades at least to detoxify the Democrat brand in Manassas.

After that it was all downhill.  Rishell was asked how she differs from her opponent, and her response was that she didn’t want to give away her “game plan” by responding to the question.  Sort of the “I’d tell you where I stand on the issues, but I’m afraid to” strategy.  Yeah, like we don’t know what Rishell stands for.  Cripes.

Where does DPVA dredge up these folks?

*UPDATE: Harry Wiggins e-mailed to complain that he wasn’t fired, demanding a retraction. Since neither he or Paul Nichols would ever characterize how Harry left as a “firing”, it’s worth mentioning that Harry left Paul Nichols’ staff at precisely the time when a big controversy erupted about some of Harry’s statements regarding the School Board that got quite a few in the school system rather upset. I don’t believe the timing here was a coincidence, which is the basis for me saying “fired”. What actually happened behind closed doors that day isn’t clear.



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. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

28 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 10 Aug 2009 at 10:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    If a Republican had said something like this it would make national news. This Caputo guy is out of control.

    As for Rishell, her “Christian beliefs” certainly seem to accomodate having wiccans and pagans as part of her congregation, and the BRUU screening homosexual-oriented films - and only homosexual-oriented films - as part of their official program. If she’s a Christian, she’s not reading the same Bible I do. Rishell is about as close to being a Christian as a buddist monk is close to Islam.

    These folks are just plain nuts.

  2. Not Larry Sabato said on 11 Aug 2009 at 4:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, were you there? Didn’t see you.

  3. Not Ilana Kaplan-Shain said on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Rishell believes she’s a Christian, but she holds a very distorted view of Christianity. No Christian can read the 1st commandment, and then kneel at the alter of liberalism and reconcile the two. No Christian can read the 6th commandment and be “pro-choice”. No Christian can read the 8th commandment and support the tax system that liberals advocate. No Christian can read the scriptures regarding marriage, and support gay marriage. No Christian can read the scriptures and support the gary life-style. Liberals like Rishell claim that “tolerance” is a Christian value. It is not. Mercy, is the opposite of Judgement, not tolerance. Did Christ tolerate the money lenders in the temple? No. Rishell is a progressive humanist. She is not a Christian by any objective measure. If she were a Christian, she would not tolerate the pagans and such in God’s house, her “church”. I would welcome the opportunity to have a scriptural debate with her.

  4. FED UP said on 11 Aug 2009 at 8:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Not Ilana Kaplan-Shain said on 11 Aug 2009 at 7:47 am: Flag comment

    Excellent post

  5. Johnson said on 11 Aug 2009 at 9:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Sounds like being at the circus, counting the clowns that come out of the car.

  6. Bwana said on 11 Aug 2009 at 10:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Rishell’s “game plan” comment has the same viability as the Janet response in 2007 when she was asked how she would have voted on the 2007 transportation package. Hoot refused to say how she would have voted on that particular bill because she did not want to deal with hypothetical questions…

  7. Bible Reader said on 11 Aug 2009 at 10:45 am:
    Flag comment

    In ‘06 Rishell said we should be forgiving of illegal aliens because of what the Bible says in Leviticus 3.

    Leviticus 3 instructs the faithful in how to offer burnt offerings under Jewish ceremonial law under the Old Covenant.

    Jeanette Rishell’s “christian faith” apparently suggests we immolate live illegal aliens on stone altars as a sacrifice to God.

    Yeah, she’s a Christian all right. From the church of the fundamentally confused.

  8. Logical Thinker said on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    “Republicans don’t want felons to vote because they know they’ll all vote Democratic”: From Chuck Caputo…FORMER Democratic Party Delegate from Fairfax :)

    Note to Democrat Minority Leader Delegate Ward Armstrong: Out of the mouths of babes…don’t you love it? Your new Motto:

    “The Democratic Party, Friend of the Felon, Home of the Fools”

  9. I'm just saying... said on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    There are approximately 40,000 different Christian denominations in the world. I always am amused when any one person claims the right to decide what constitutes a “Christian”. The only thing more amusing is arguments among Christians about who is more “Christian”. The only thing that frightens me is when someone attempts to legislate their version of “Christian values”.

    I”m going outside to offer a burnt offering now…

  10. Abogado said on 11 Aug 2009 at 12:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Quien es mas macho?

  11. Not Ilana Kaplan-Shain said on 11 Aug 2009 at 2:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I’m just saying… said on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:42 am: Flag comment

    There are approximately 40,000 different Christian denominations in the world. I always am amused when any one person claims the right to decide what constitutes a “Christian”.”

    There may be, but there is only one scripture. Sure, the Catholic Bible might have a few more books, but the scripture that forms the basis of the core beliefs of Christianity and it’s various denominations is the same throughout. The commandments are the same throughout, the gospels, etc. Therefore, you cannot claim that your “Christian beliefs” drive you to one position, if the scripture is clear that your position is counter to that which is contained therein.

    Not too long ago, Nancy Pelosi visited the Vatican. When the Pope called her to task for her support for abortion, she tried to argue her position from a doctrinal perspective. Dumb move arguing Canon Law with the Pope.

    So, “just saying”, I suggest you pick up one of those Bibles and familiarize yourself with its contents. Also, Christians are supposed to “vote their values” and leaders are supposed to be “Godly men” and women.

  12. Johnson said on 11 Aug 2009 at 2:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    English, please. This is the United States of America. Americans communicate in english.

  13. Not Ilana Kaplan-Shain said on 11 Aug 2009 at 3:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Abogado said on 11 Aug 2009 at 12:23 pm: Flag comment

    Quien es mas macho?

    Ricardo Mantalban es mas macho

  14. Not llana Kaplan-Shain said on 11 Aug 2009 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Fernando Llamas es mas macho

  15. Disgusted said on 11 Aug 2009 at 4:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Not-Ilana,
    Explain your understanding of separation of church & state, please.

  16. I'm just saying... said on 11 Aug 2009 at 6:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not Ilana Kaplan-Shain, thanks for proving my point.

  17. Not IIlana Kaplan-Shain said on 12 Aug 2009 at 6:14 am:
    Flag comment

    “Disgusted said on 11 Aug 2009 at 4:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Not-Ilana,
    Explain your understanding of separation of church & state, please.”

    My understanding? I think I understand it quite well. The words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. They are a construct of secularists who point to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson:

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

    My interpretation: You are free to practice any religion that you want in this country, or none at all. The government will not pass any law establishing a state religion, nor any law that interferes with your ability to practice your religion, nor will they pass a law forcing you to be religious or reverent to a God or gods in whom you do not believe, nor adhere to religious practices in which you do not believe, or are counter to those in which you do believe.

    Perhaps I am assuming too much, but I have submitted to a higher authority than the US Constitution, and the interpretations of it by those in authority, and you have not. That is not to say that I do not support or obey the Constitution fully. Christ commanded that we submit to and obey our government and our laws. You see, I can do both, as the Constitution was written by Godly men, and is not counter to those things that Christ commanded. However, the secular-humanist cannot. He believes that there is no higher authority than man, no one to answer to accept himself. He practices moral relativism, or “if it feels good, it must be good”.

    Now, I believe that I have answered your question. Now please answer mine, which is to my original point:

    If Jeanette Rishell claims that her “Christian Beliefs” dictate that convicts be “forgiven their sins” then they must be forgiven their voting rights, but yet she can be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, I ask how can she possibly reconcile these positions?

    I say no intellectually honest Christian can. No one who has submitted to Christ and all that He has commanded can. Were she just some random person on the streets, it would be between her and her Creator to work this out. But she IS campaigning to be my representative. Therefore, if she’s knocking on doors or making public statements to the effect that her “beliefs” are based on a flawed view of scripture, then she needs to be rebuked. She needs to be questioned. She has born false witness against her neighbor, when her campaign flat-out lied about her opponent. She has fought for gays to be able to marry, which flies in the face of everything the scriptures point to regarding marriage. She defends the “right” of society to kill the unborn, which is indeed murder. She advocates for confiscatory levels of taxation, which is theft. She belongs to a “church” that welcomes pagans, screens homosexual films, and promotes the gay life-style. She has hired a campaign manager that advocated for porn to be stocked in the school library. She has openly supported those who break our immigration laws.

    Taken in this context, why would any intellectually honest, obedient Christian question her sincerity when she states that her “Christian beliefs” guide her to a certain position? I would much prefer she be honest, and not insult my intelligence. She should admit that she is a liberal secular-humanist and move on from there. She, for once in her political life, should tell the truth, and stop hiding who she is. We don’t need another Obama.

  18. Lil Dog said on 12 Aug 2009 at 7:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Not llana,

    You tell’em!

  19. Ron said on 12 Aug 2009 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    THis is similar to the Oleszek commentary on illegal immigration that I got from her. When asked about what level of government-funded services illegal immigrants should have, she basically refused to answer, only saying that “as a Jew” any talk of restricting these services bothered her. (We don’t know if Oleszek is a member of any congregation.)

    Now as a non-Christian, I guess I can help with some, er, unbiased view, right? ;) We all do share a common view of moral principles, many of which are codified into law. Laws against murder and theft are easy examples that come to mind. We tend to get a little more mired in describing legal application to other activities, such as abortion, adultery, etc. Under just about every major religion, abortion (when not done to save the life of the mother) is considered sinful and is considered the same as murder. I hope that no one (and especially no one who is running for political office) wants to promote abortions, but clearly those who are pro-choice, for example, clearly cannot reconcile those views with religious beliefs given the pretty strong morally absolute statements from just about every major religion. If they want to hide behind legalistic arguments, or even admit to political pandering, fine, but don’t try to justify it religiously.

    The illegal immigration issue is also just so much crap. Yes, we all understand how it’s wonderful to help the poor and needy, but the fact is, anyone who comes into this country illegally is pretty much stealing the place in line of someone who is following the law. So the religious argument cuts more strongly the other way.

    The main problem as I see it is that many on the left are trying to use religion as a cover for socialism while refusing to recognize the moral absolutes that make religious belief, as well as society work. Unfortunately, the logical consequence is that society breaks down, and these leftists are the last to figure it out (at least until it’s too late).

  20. Johnson said on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    We’re seeing the results of those attitudes in Mexico with a raging drug war and the highest birth rate among unwed mothers. Aren’t drugs illegal and isn’t sex before marriage frowned upon by Catholicism? Their “culture” has no respect for laws or morals. Intelligent, responsible adults take steps against unwanted pregnancies, regardless of their religion. I can only conclude that theirs is not a culture that I care to have imported into my country.

  21. Johnson said on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:50 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.the-signal.com/news/article/16666/

    Anybody wonder why Kalifornia is broke?

  22. James Young said on 12 Aug 2009 at 1:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    I sincerely doubt that all felons are Democrats.

    However, I am willing to entertain the possibility that all Democrats are felons.

  23. Big Dog said on 12 Aug 2009 at 1:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Republicans use big business to steal.
    Democrats use big government to steal.
    Plenty of felons in both parties.
    Pick your poison.

  24. Lil Dog said on 12 Aug 2009 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Big Dog,

    So I guess the only honest folks in politics are those Indies, right?

  25. Disgusted said on 12 Aug 2009 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not-IIana said: “Now, I believe that I have answered your question. Now please answer mine, which is to my original point:

    If Jeanette Rishell claims that her “Christian Beliefs” dictate that convicts be “forgiven their sins” then they must be forgiven their voting rights, but yet she can be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, I ask how can she possibly reconcile these positions? ”

    My answer: I believe she’s lying!!! Given the choice between voting for Rishell and a cat, I’d vote for the cat because it couldn’t create the problems and bungle the job that Rishell would. Ms. Rishell is insincere and wholly unequiped to be a delegate. I seriously doubt she has any Christian beliefs. She uses the old bromide of telling the voters what they want to hear. Why would you actually believe her?

    By the way, I didn’t state anything about my beliefs in my question to you. Cheap shots only serve to undermine what is otherwise a well researched position.

    And James Young…you’re a lawyer. Enough said!

  26. Not llana Kaplan-Shain said on 13 Aug 2009 at 7:58 am:
    Flag comment

    “Cheap shots only serve to undermine what is otherwise a well researched position. ”

    Disgusted,

    My apologies. I mistakenly interpreted your initial question as an attempt to bait me into an argument. Your response would indicate that this was not your intent, and the foul is mine alone.

  27. Pete said on 13 Aug 2009 at 11:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    As a former Catholic, I am angry at the Council of Catholic Church and the Vatican for lobbying for amnesty. In my opinion, it is purely to keep butts in pews, giving the Church political influence and money; something it is losing rapidly as Americans distance themselves from Catholicism. The Church’s positions are shameful and is a big part of the reason I no longer consider myself Catholic.

  28. Johnson said on 14 Aug 2009 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pete-I hope that you haven’t lost your faith as well.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2188