Rip Wheeler

Seattle's Downtown Is on Clearance. City Hall's Answer: "We're #4 in the World." A 41-story Seattle tower just sold at an 84% discount, and nearly half the businesses that answered a new survey say they've thought about leaving too. In 2019, Vanbarton Group paid $304.5 million for 901 Fifth Avenue, the 41-story tower once known as the Bank of California Building. This fall it sold for $48.3 million, about $89 a square foot and roughly 84% below the 2019 price. That's not a one-off. In June, Roosevelt Commons in the U District went for $27 million. It sold for $157 million in 2019. That's an 83% haircut, and nobody even had to call it a "market correction" with a straight face. Now the people still paying rent are talking. The Seattle Metro Chamber and the Downtown Seattle Association surveyed 247 businesses in late summer. Of the 197 who answered the question, 47% said they had seriously considered moving operations, jobs or investment out of Seattle in the past year. Fifty-six percent said the business climate got worse, 61% are pessimistic about the next 12 months, and 72% said Seattle's tax, fee and compliance burden isn't competitive. They rated the city's responsiveness to business 26 out of 100. Public safety and taxes topped the list of reasons. The mayor's office, asked about it, reached for a ribbon: "Seattle was recently ranked #4 in the world on the Oxford Economics 2026 Global Cities Index – this is something to be proud of." Nothing says "we heard you" like a participation trophy. To be fair (somebody has to be), this is a voluntary survey, not a random sample, and only 9% said they actually expect to relocate in the next year. Office values are down in a lot of cities since remote work became normal. But Portland's Royal Sonesta hotel reportedly sold for about 94% off its 2016 price, too, and the common thread in these places isn't the weather. Here's the Washington twist. On Tuesday's ballot, IP26-645 would repeal the state's new 9.9% tax on individual income over $1 million, set to start in 2028. The state estimates repeal would cost about $11.4 billion over five fiscal years, and supporters of the tax say that money funds schools and health care. Opponents say the people who pay it are the same ones already eyeing the exits. Downtown Seattle is the experiment. The price tags are the results. Seattle and Washington folks: is the city's slide about remote work, or about how City Hall and Olympia treat the people who sign the paychecks?

PAIN TO BEAUTY LADIES “Ozempic Vagina”: Rapid Weight Loss, Loose Skin, and a $2,500 Fix A new catchphrase has joined “Ozempic face” in the GLP-1 era: “Ozempic vagina” or, more precisely, “Ozempic vulva.” Media reports describe women who lost substantial weight on semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) or similar drugs seeking cosmetic procedures—often labia puffing with dermal fillers—at costs around $2,000–$2,500 to restore volume to the external genitals. The term is not a medical diagnosis. It refers to the loss of fat padding in the labia majora and mons pubis that can leave the area looking deflated, saggy, or wrinkled after rapid weight loss. Some women also report related discomfort or dryness. Plastic surgeons note increased inquiries for “labia puffing” (injectable fillers) or labiaplasty, with one UK surgeon reporting a 20% spike in related procedures. The process mirrors Ozempic face: fat disappears faster than skin can tighten, and the effect appears wherever fat pads once provided volume. Experts emphasize this is a byproduct of significant weight loss rather than a direct drug effect on genital tissue. The same loose-skin changes can follow any method of rapid fat loss, including bariatric surgery. A large 2026 analysis of healthcare records covering hundreds of thousands of women found no statistically significant difference in diagnosed vulvar atrophy or hypertrophy between GLP-1 users and non-users (roughly 0.06% in both groups). Anecdotal reports and social media discussion have outpaced formal evidence. For those bothered by the changes, options include non-surgical fillers, surgical contouring, pelvic floor therapy, or simply waiting to see how the skin adapts. As with facial changes after weight loss, results vary, and procedures carry the usual costs and recovery considerations. The phenomenon is real for some individuals but remains poorly quantified, driven more by the speed of modern weight-loss drugs than by any unique genital side effect.

ICE Pulled Over a Tourist From 2019. He Was Wearing a Washington Child-Welfare Jacket. Olympia can't tell you who's on its payroll, but ICE can, apparently during a routine traffic stop. On Monday, ICE's Seattle office stopped a car and arrested Stanley Robert Kungu Muthee, a Kenyan national. According to ICE, as reported by Fox News, he flew in on a B-2 tourist visa on Feb. 6, 2019, and simply never left. That's a seven-year vacation, and nobody even sent a postcard. The kicker: he was wearing a Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families jacket and carrying a DCYF ID. Per Fox, he admitted he works there. DCYF confirmed he's been on staff since Aug. 16, 2024. The state's defense is a masterpiece of bureaucratic shrugging. DCYF spokeswoman Nancy Gutierrez said he "provided the appropriate documentation when he was hired, which indicated he was authorized to work," including "a valid United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) number with no expiration date," and that the agency has "not been notified of a change in his status." Translation: the paperwork was fine, so everything is fine. Never mind that, as DHS pointed out, a work permit is not the same thing as legal status and doesn't shield anyone from deportation. ICE didn't bother with nuance. Its official account posted: "AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD NEVER PAY THE SALARIES OF ILLEGAL ALIENS!" and said illegal aliens have "NO BUSINESS" working in agencies responsible for American children. To be fair, and somebody has to be, we don't know what his job at DCYF actually was, and he hasn't been convicted of anything. Overstaying a visa is a civil immigration matter, and he may yet contest it. But here's the real question for Washington. This is the state that mails a ballot to everyone on the rolls, sues the feds over enforcement, and calls itself a proud sanctuary. If the agency in charge of foster kids can't spot a seven-year visa overstay on its own payroll, how many others are there? And would Olympia ever have found out if ICE hadn't pulled someone over first? Five days before Election Day, it's worth asking who's checking the checkers. So, Washington: should every state agency that works with kids be required to run E-Verify and a status check, or is "the paperwork looked fine" good enough?

Spectrum's outage map is probably still buffering. If Hillsboro ever wants a plan B that lives on the roof, my Starlink link gets you $100 cash or service credit when you sign up: starlink.com/?referral=RC-13…

Finally some good news…

Minnesota Finally Charged Someone for Election Fraud. Neither Man Got a Ballot. Six days before the midterms, the felony voting case Minnesota chose to make is against two guys with cameras. On Wednesday, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty charged conservative journalist Cam Higby and Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe with felony unlawful voting and identity theft. The case comes from the Aug. 11 primary, when the two filmed themselves at Minneapolis polling places, in disguise, testing the state's "vouching" rule. Quick civics lesson. In Minnesota, a registered voter can show up on Election Day and vouch for the address of up to eight unregistered people in the same precinct. O'Keefe said the point was to "expose the sheer lunacy" of that system. Prosecutors say the pair gave election judges the names of real registered voters, including some who are dead and at least one living voter who actually voted. That part, if it holds up, is a fair thing to object to. But here's what the prosecutor herself said. Neither man got a ballot. Neither voted. Neither signed the vouching oath. "I think it's pretty clear they did not intend to vote," Moriarty said. Her theory is that giving a false name while applying for a ballot is the crime, ballot or no ballot. So the felony voting case of the season involves zero votes. The system worked, officials insist. The poll workers followed the rules, Secretary of State Steve Simon says. Then they charged the guys who showed the rules can be walked right up to. Higby has spent years filming Seattle's protest scene, and was beaten outside a federal building there in 2025. He's now fundraising and denies breaking any law. O'Keefe brings his own baggage, including a 2024 settlement with a Pennsylvania postmaster over 2020 fraud claims his old group promoted. Fair to note. Doesn't change the math on the vouching rule. Now the Washington angle. We don't do vouching here. We do same-day registration: show up at a voting center by 8 p.m. on Election Day, register in person, and walk out with a ballot. You can register without ID, though the ballot isn't counted until you provide a qualifying ID to the county. Olympia calls that access. Some of us call it a stress test nobody's allowed to run. They make their first court appearance Nov. 16, after the election, naturally. Should election stings like this be prosecuted, or should states be fixing the loopholes they expose? Reply below.

They bitch and moan about the cost of living and fuel then do this as an answer.

A rat crashed a birthday dinner at a Cheesecake Factory near Portland A party of 12 was celebrating a birthday at the Cheesecake Factory at Clackamas Town Center on Oct. 14 when other diners started pointing at the ceiling. A rat was running along a platform up there, eyeing the food, and the video has since passed 500,000 views on TikTok. The server offered a new table and remade food, but the family left for a Mexican place nearby, and they weren't charged. Kicker: Rough week for the Cheesecake Factory. First Obama used it as a punchline, and now the rats are reviewing it from the rafters.

Allowing Noncitizens to Vote After Open Borders Is Pure Insanity A Santa Ana, California, city councilmember recently stated the quiet part out loud: nearly one in three adults in her city cannot vote because a large share of residents are undocumented. She argued that letting them participate in local elections would make the city “safer,” “more vibrant,” and “stronger,” calling it “the most American thing to do.” Residents rejected a 2024 charter amendment (Measure DD) that would have allowed exactly that by roughly 60-40 percent. Federal law already bars noncitizens—legal permanent residents included—from voting in presidential, Senate, or House races. Violations can bring prison time, fines, and deportation. A handful of cities and the District of Columbia have opened limited local races to noncitizens, but the practice remains exceptional and controversial. Santa Ana’s own voters just said no. The deeper problem is the combination of high levels of illegal immigration with any expansion of the franchise. When large numbers of people enter or remain without authorization, then receive local voting rights, citizen votes are diluted in the places where the concentration is highest. Local offices control budgets, policing priorities, housing policy, and school boards—decisions that affect everyone. Noncitizens remain citizens of other countries; granting them a formal say in American governance imports foreign influence by design. Recent federal prosecutions show the line is not theoretical. DOJ and ICE have charged dozens of noncitizens (mostly green-card holders) in multiple states for registering or voting in recent elections. While large-scale, outcome-changing illegal voting remains rare according to most audits, the existence of any such cases, combined with proposals to legalize the practice for undocumented residents, creates clear incentives. Open-border policies increase the pool; voting-rights expansions reward it. Citizenship is not an arbitrary hurdle. It is the mechanism that ties the right to govern to the people who permanently share the country’s fate, obligations, and risks. Naturalized citizens already earn that status through a process that includes residency, tests, and an oath. Treating illegal presence as sufficient for a ballot devalues that process and invites the very outcome the Santa Ana councilmember described: a city where a large noncitizen population shapes the government that citizens must live under. Voters in Santa Ana understood this and rejected it. Other cities considering similar measures should take the same lesson. Flooding the country with people who entered illegally, then handing them voting power, is not representation. It is a transfer of political control away from the citizens who built and sustain the system. That is a very bad plan.

The Feds Found 405 Noncitizens on Washington's Voter Rolls. Olympia's Big Concern? The Timing. Washington mails a ballot to everyone on the list. Turns out "everyone" may be doing a lot of work. On Monday, Acting U.S. Attorney Neil Floyd (Western District) and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Pete Serrano (Eastern District) sent Secretary of State Steve Hobbs a list of 405 people they say are noncitizens who are registered and have voted here. Per their letter, those 405 account for more than 1,500 ballots in past elections, some as recently as the August primary, and some cast over more than a decade. The ask: check the list and set those ballots aside until citizenship is confirmed. The deadline in the letter runs out today, Wednesday, and prosecutors said they'd seek emergency court relief if the state doesn't act. Floyd called it "only the tip of the iceberg." His method, as he described it, is checking green card holders and other known noncitizens against voter records one person at a time. Why so slow? Because Washington refused to hand over its unredacted voter rolls, and a federal judge tossed DOJ's lawsuit for them in September. Hobbs, a Democrat, says his office is reviewing it. He also said this: "The timing of this request—one week before the General Election—is no doubt intended to cast unfounded suspicion on the results." Ah yes, the timing. Because the best time to find out who shouldn't be voting is apparently after they've voted. Floyd made exactly that point: once a ballot is counted, "you can't un-ring that bell." Now the fair part, because facts matter even when they're inconvenient. None of this is proven yet. Nobody has been charged. The letter itself admits some people on the list may have since become citizens. Hobbs says one record dates to 1994, and federal databases have a history of flagging newly naturalized citizens. In California, a similar DOJ list ran into trouble in court this week. So maybe the real number is lower. Fine. Then check it. That's the whole request. A state that mails a ballot to every name on a 5-million-plus list and leans on a signature box for proof of citizenship shouldn't be offended when someone asks to look. The state's answer so far is "due process" and "privacy." Somehow those words only show up when someone wants to verify something. So I'll ask you: should Washington set those 405 ballots aside until citizenship is confirmed, or is Olympia right that this is a pre-election stunt? Tell me below.

The Millionaire Tax: Retirement Was Never Supposed to Be a Moving Target Washington State is once again asking taxpayers to pay more, and this time the debate over a so-called millionaire tax raises serious questions about retirement, financial planning, and whether people can trust the rules they planned their futures around. People spend decades working, paying taxes, contributing to retirement plans, and earning pensions. They make decisions based on the laws in place at the time. Now, retirees and high-income households are left wondering what comes next. A tax aimed at millionaires today can become the starting point for expanding the definition of who should pay tomorrow. And here’s the political irony: the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters endorsed Jay Inslee for reelection in 2020 and Bob Ferguson for governor in 2024. Those endorsements raise a fair question for retired firefighters and other public employees: Did the people supporting these candidates fully consider the long-term tax consequences for the very workers they represented? Firefighters dedicate their careers to serving the public, often working dangerous jobs and planning retirement around pensions earned through years of service. Retirement should mean some financial security—not worrying that lawmakers will keep changing the rules and reaching deeper into the pockets of those who worked and saved. Washington politicians cannot continually sell higher taxes as the answer to every budget problem while expecting taxpayers to trust that today’s tax won’t become tomorrow’s broader tax. You worked for your retirement. You paid into the system. You earned your pension. When does the government finally decide you’ve paid enough? A few important facts strengthen the argument: Washington’s 9.9% income tax on annual income above $1 million takes effect January 1, 2028, and the law includes public pension income in the calculation. A pension by itself at current levels generally won’t trigger the tax, but pension income combined with other income could push a household over the threshold. The WSCFF’s 2020 endorsement of Inslee is documented in its own endorsement announcement.

EV Mandates, Gas Shortages, and the Reality Politicians Ignore Jake pulled into a gas station on his way home from work. His truck was running low, and he needed fuel to get through the week. But the news was talking about tightening gasoline supplies, refinery constraints, and rising prices. It made him wonder: How can America be pushing electric vehicles while still struggling to maintain a reliable gasoline supply? America still has millions of gasoline-powered cars and trucks on the road. Farmers need diesel. Contractors need trucks. Families in rural communities often drive long distances. And despite the push toward electric vehicles, that reality isn’t changing overnight. The problem isn’t simply whether America has enough oil underground. Oil must be extracted, refined, transported, and delivered. When refinery capacity tightens, inventories fall, or global conflicts disrupt supplies, Americans can feel the consequences at the pump. Electric vehicles may be part of the future, but gasoline is still part of everyday American life. So why aren’t we making sure today’s energy needs are protected while planning for tomorrow? We can pursue cleaner energy without ignoring the millions of Americans who still depend on affordable, reliable gasoline. Before politicians mandate where America needs to go, perhaps they should make sure we can get there. Because a transition to the future shouldn’t leave Americans stranded in the present.

REMEMBER THIS SMUG LITTLE SHIT? The FBI Just Searched a Billionaire's Mansion in the Swalwell Probe. Remember When He Was the One Lecturing Us? The man who spent years on cable TV demanding investigations just got a front-row seat to one. Early Tuesday, federal agents executed a court-authorized search warrant at a Beverly Hills mansion. Multiple outlets, citing people familiar with the probe, say it's tied to the criminal investigation into former Rep. Eric Swalwell. The home is linked to Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire developer who dropped his own run for California governor and put more than $1 million behind Swalwell's campaign. Per AP, Swalwell spent time at the home before he resigned from Congress in April. The FBI's comment, in full spirit: an "ongoing criminal investigation," no arrests planned, affidavit sealed. Translation: stay tuned. Quick refresher for anyone who blinked. In April, Swalwell quit the House under bipartisan threat of expulsion after multiple women accused him of misconduct, including a former staffer's sexual assault allegation. He suspended his governor's campaign. Cloobeck says he cut ties after the allegations surfaced. Now the fair part, because facts matter even when they're fun. Swalwell has not been charged. He denies criminal wrongdoing. A search warrant is not a conviction. And yes, a Texas Republican, Tony Gonzales, resigned the same week under a cloud of his own. Both parties had housecleaning to do. But forgive us out here in Washington State for noticing a pattern. For years, this was the guy on every network explaining that the mere existence of an investigation proved the target was guilty. Russia. Collusion. "Walls closing in." He knew the script by heart. Turns out the walls are very real. They just have a nice Beverly Hills address and a gate code. The lesson isn't "gotcha." It's that the standard he demanded for everyone else is the standard he gets now: let the evidence come out, let a court sort it, and skip the cable-news verdicts. Funny how fast "due process" becomes a cherished principle when it's your donor's driveway full of agents. So here's my question: Should the media give Swalwell the same presumption of innocence he never gave his opponents? Or is this just what it looks like when the rules finally apply both ways? Tell me below.

Venezuelan Oil Hits Texas: Trump Makes His Move, and the Left Won’t Like It The first shipment of Venezuelan oil under the Trump administration’s new deal has reportedly arrived in Corpus Christi, Texas. One million barrels of crude oil, described by the White House as costing American taxpayers nothing, are now on U.S. soil and headed for domestic refining. Love him or hate him, Trump is playing a different game. Following the removal of Nicolás Maduro in January, the administration says its agreement opens the door to expanded American access to Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves. The deal reportedly provides preferential access to crude through a private operator, potentially giving U.S. refiners a significant advantage in securing affordable energy supplies. Why does that matter? Because American refineries, particularly along the Gulf Coast, are equipped to process the heavy crude Venezuela produces. Refining that oil here means more economic activity, jobs, and industrial value staying in the United States. And what about energy prices? One shipment won’t magically make gasoline cheap overnight, and expanding production takes time. But increasing access to discounted crude could improve supply, strengthen energy security, and potentially put downward pressure on fuel costs over time. Here’s the part that should make the political establishment uncomfortable: after years of arguments over energy restrictions, dependence on foreign suppliers, and the future of American oil production, the Trump administration is pursuing a strategy focused on securing resources and strengthening America’s energy position. Imagine that—using American influence to secure energy supplies, support domestic industry, and potentially benefit American consumers. The left can criticize Trump all it wants. The media can downplay the announcement. But if this deal delivers what the administration promises, the real test will be the results: more reliable energy supplies, stronger domestic refining, and lower costs for American families. Because at the end of the day, Americans don’t fill their trucks with political talking points. They fill them with diesel and gasoline. And if this strategy helps bring those prices down, voters won’t care how much it irritates Washington’s political class. America First isn’t just a slogan. It’s supposed to deliver results.

Enough With the Negativity. Tell Us Why We Should Vote for You. We are constantly bombarded with negativity. Turn on the news, listen to the radio, or scroll through social media, and it’s the same endless cycle of outrage, accusations, scandals, and finger-pointing. Politicians seem to believe the best way to earn our vote is to convince us how terrible the other guy is. Their campaigns are built around what their opponents have done wrong, what they allegedly stand for, and why we should be afraid of them. But when did attacking your opponent become a substitute for earning the public’s trust? Voters are tired of the mudslinging. We want to know what you’ve accomplished, what problems you’ve solved, and what you intend to do about the issues affecting our everyday lives. How will you lower the cost of living? Improve our schools? Fix our roads? Address crime? Manage taxpayer money responsibly? Don’t just tell us why the other candidate is bad. Tell us why you are the better choice. Leadership isn’t about tearing someone else down. It’s about demonstrating that you have the experience, integrity, and solutions to do the job. We don’t need another campaign built on fear, anger, and division. We need candidates who can explain what they stand for, what they’ve accomplished, and how they plan to make things better. You want our vote? Stop telling us why we shouldn’t vote for the other guy. Tell us why you deserve our vote.

The Iran-Israel Conflict Predates Trump by Decades—So Why Do Democrats Keep Blaming Him? Apparently, in today’s political climate, history only matters when it helps Democrats blame Republicans. The hostility between Iran and Israel didn’t begin with Donald Trump. It didn’t begin with Netanyahu. It didn’t even begin with the latest Middle East crisis. It began in 1979, nearly half a century ago. Before Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the Shah maintained cooperative relations with Israel, including oil trade, intelligence sharing, and military cooperation. That changed dramatically when Ayatollah Khomeini seized power. Iran severed relations with Israel, embraced an openly hostile ideology, and began supporting organizations committed to fighting Israel. By the early 1980s, Iran was helping build Hezbollah into a powerful anti-Israel force in Lebanon. Over the decades, its support expanded to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other militant groups. The result was a prolonged regional conflict involving terrorism, assassinations, cyberattacks, missile strikes, and proxy warfare. This was happening under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden—and Donald Trump. For decades, Iran and Israel fought primarily through proxies and covert operations. That changed in April 2024, when Iran launched a massive drone and missile attack directly against Israel. The conflict escalated further in 2025, with Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, Iranian missile attacks, and American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Yet somehow, for some Democratic politicians, the central question isn’t why Iran has pursued confrontation with Israel for nearly 50 years. It’s how they can pin the blame on Trump. They blame his 2018 withdrawal from the Obama-era nuclear agreement, argue that he escalated the conflict, and accuse him of being dragged into war by Benjamin Netanyahu. Some have even invoked impeachment or the 25th Amendment in response to his military actions. But let’s ask a few inconvenient questions. Did Trump create Iran’s revolutionary ideology in 1979? No. Did Trump create Hezbollah in the 1980s? No. Did Trump invent Iran’s support for Hamas and other militant organizations? No. Did the hostility between Iran and Israel begin during his presidency? Absolutely not. Critics of Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement have legitimate policy arguments to make. Supporters of the agreement believed it offered a path to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. Critics argued that its time-limited restrictions, limitations on inspections, and failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional proxy activities left significant problems unresolved. Those are fair subjects for debate. But pretending the nuclear agreement permanently resolved Iran’s ambitions—or that everything went wrong only when Trump took office—is political spin, not serious historical analysis. Iran’s nuclear activities, regional ambitions, and support for armed proxies have persisted across multiple American administrations. The regional crisis intensified dramatically following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, during the Biden administration. And the direct Iran-Israel confrontation has roots stretching back decades. None of this means every decision made by Trump was necessarily correct, or that his administration should be immune from criticism. Presidents must be held accountable for their decisions, particularly when American lives and the risk of a wider war are involved. But accountability requires intellectual honesty. You cannot ignore nearly five decades of Iranian hostility, proxy warfare, and regional aggression, then act as though one American president created the entire problem. Trump inherited a conflict. He did not invent it. Democrats are free to criticize his strategy, question his military decisions, and argue for diplomacy. That’s part of a healthy democracy. But blaming Trump for a conflict that began in 1979 is like blaming the fire chief for the fire simply because he arrived while the building was burning. The real question isn’t why Trump failed to make decades of hostility disappear overnight. The real question is why, after nearly 50 years, Iran’s regime continues to pursue confrontation—and why some American politicians seem more interested in scoring points against a president than confronting the history that brought us here.

Oh just look at the timing on this crap.