Prodigals

If you haven’t read the whole back-story, stop right here. Go read it at least.  Listening is better.

The summary is this:  Dan Johnson was a goof-ball preacher who conned everyone with wild self-aggrandizing stories, all demonstrably false, who managed to get himself elected to the state legislature from Bullitt County, Kentucky.  When investigative journalists did what investigative journalists are supposed to do, and checked up on his ridiculous stories and uncovered the proof that he was a crock of shit, and when it came out that a sexual-assault victim had gone to the police with a complaint, he committed suicide on Wednesday afternoon.

But don’t rely on that summary, I’m telling you.  Go to the link and read/listen.

Notice the date on the website.  December 11. That is the day when the piece first went live.  December 11.  Two days later, on December 13, Dan Johnson killed himself.  You don’t get “worn down” in two days.

This is vintage, typical Nicole. She doesn’t read anything. She just sees the headlines, and then she makes it all about her.

She’s not “fighting false claims.”  Dan Johnson wasn’t “fighting false claims.”

He was a lying sack shit, and spent his whole adult life conning everyone in sight.  I think there is a parallel there, but that’s not my subject today.

Last night, one of my husband’s relatives-by-marriage made a comment on a crappy Facebook page, one I would never follow in a million years, but you know how Facebook tells you that your friend “Edward” commented on some page.  The comment was “We love you, Mr. President.”

Here’s what she was commenting on.

I couldn’t help myself. I commented too. You know, something about how I hoped he choked on his next Big Mac.

But what do these two things have to do with each other?  Dan Johnson and his lying sack of shit widow, and Donald Trump and my distant relation, what do they have in common?

My question, the one I’ve been chewing over for the last twenty-four hours, is this:  How do these lying sacks of shit get elected, and why do their supporters go right on supporting them no matter what they do?  What is wrong with people in Bullitt County?  What is wrong with Republicans across America? What is wrong with my husband’s relative that she cannot see Trump for what he is?

What is it with the religious right and why do they overlook the lying sacks of shit and their lying lies?

There are certainly degrees of outrage when it comes to bad behavior.  We understand, at least most of us do, that if somebody filches $5 from the till because their children are hungry and they can’t pay their bills or buy groceries, that is stealing.  We also know that armed robbery is stealing also, and requires a much larger penalty than the filching thing.

Sexual assault/rape comes in degrees.

On one side, we have Al Franken. What he did (and it appears that he actually did some stuff that none of us would call appropriate) isn’t the same as rape. He never committed arson.  He never lied repeatedly about his background.  He is leaving the Senate because people on the left said no.  It doesn’t matter that he didn’t commit a crime.

On the other side, we have Dan Johnson and Donald Trump.  I don’t think I need to list their crimes (and they are, in fact, crimes).

Yet, the religious right, including my husband’s relative, think it’s all fine. They never mention Franken, of course.

WHY?

When I meet somebody who has engaged in questionable behavior for decades, for all their adult life, I usually don’t expect better behavior from them.  I know that their past actions are predictive of what they are likely to do in the future.

People change, of course, but I am not stupid, and I’m not going to trust somebody like that until/unless I see evidence of that change.

This is the reason why employers look at police records, and evictions, and past employment records.  They assume there will be more of the same.

But not these evangelical Christians.

And this is why.

The Bible?

Yeah, the Bible.

Sometimes (a very few times) the Bible gets it right.  This is not one of those times.

Has anyone ever been to see Mike Warnke?  Does anyone but me know who he is?

Mike Warnke, for the unintiated, is still alive, but thoroughly discredited. He still has a website, begging for money.

During the Satanic Panic years (the eighties) Mike Warnke, who is a comedian, styled himself as a former “Great High Priest of Satan” and an expert on all things Satanic who had been “gloriously saved” and was now a preacher.

Coming from my very strict fundamentalist background, I was briefly enamored of the guy simply because he wore jeans and had long hair.  We went to see him speak.  I left the auditorium that day convinced he was a fake, and was not surprised when he was shown to be exactly that several years later.  He was, in fact, funny as hell, but fake.

It wasn’t like the Tammy/Jim Bakker thing. He wasn’t just a flamboyant performer.  He was a fraud. The stories he told were not true. His personal history was a pack of lies.

Mike Warnke was taking advantage of a phenomenon that seems to exist solely in the fundagelical, “Bible-believing” world.

. . . to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Remember the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)?

Here’s the summary.  Two sons, each due to inherit from Daddy.  Younger son demands his inheritance early, goes and wastes it all.  Loses the whole damn thing.  Older son is dutiful, does a good job.  Younger son comes whining back to Daddy and begs forgiveness for being a jerk.  Daddy meets him and has a big feast.  Older dutiful son bitches.  It’s, of course, more Biblical horseshit.

In this story, the prodigal son becomes the hero. The dutiful good son is the bad guy, and Daddy is a sucker.

Christians love this shit.

They believe this actually happened, and that it’s indicative of more than just a real life story. They believe that “Daddy” is God, that they are the prodigals and that the good sons are all those goody-two-shoes folks who do everything right.

They absolutely love a redemption story. Their whole religion centers around it.

The result of all this worship of redemption is that the worse your pre-conversion story is, the better.  If you grew up in a religious home and went to a Christian school and then married another believer, hand-picked for you by Mommy and Daddy, and never missed a day of Sunday School or a Wednesday night prayer meeting, well, meh.  If you were the child of a prostitute who became a drug addict and then a member of the Church of Satan, and finally a hit man for the Mafia, and then you found Jesus, well, hell, you’re golden.

Christians believe in a sort of presto-chango instant-morphing thing they call “salvation.”  They don’t evolve. They are “changed.”  It’s a miracle and it supposedly happens instantly, at a specific time and date.  Many of them can tell you when.  There’s Before and then there’s After.

Before no longer counts, except that the worse Before was, the better After will be.  The more stark the contrast, the better it all is.  The more entertaining and salacious the story (they call this a “testimony”) is, the more accolades they get.  There is a reason that Christians absolutely love to hear a “testimony” from one of these people.  It’s godly x-rated movie time.

This is why Linda Fossen could marry a guy who murdered his entire family (parents and sister) on a Sunday afternoon and think that everything is wonderful because he found Jesus. This is why Mike Warnke’s life story grew and grew and grew until it simply was obvious it was all false.

This is why Dan Johnson could lie and lie and lie and sexually assault women, and commit arson, and everything was okay until those evil journalists pointed out that it was all lies.  This is why in the wake of his suicide, his supporters still insist that nobody should judge him and that it was all the evil media.

This is why Donald Trump made the statement that he could kill somebody on the street in NYC and his supporters would still be with him.

I find it sort of interesting that Nicole finds it necessary to say that Joe is just totally innocent over and over and over again.  She says this like anyone should believe her. Why on earth would I believe a thing she says?

Joe Naugler has a history of bad behavior of one sort or another over a lot of years. He’s been convicted of that bad behavior.  He threatens people repeatedly. He refuses to take any responsibility for his children, his property, his animals, nothing.  He lies about me often and egregiously.

I see no reason to expect anything better of him in the future. Unlike the Christians, I don’t believe that redemption is an instant thing.  He’ll have to show evidence and I’m not seeing it.

Why wouldn’t I believe what Nicole calls “rumors” and what was actually courtroom testimony?  There are plenty of other stories to give credence to that one.  I know for certain that Donald Trump and Dan Johnson were/are lying sacks of shit.  I believe Al Franken did pretty much what he was accused of doing, enough that it was out of bounds. I believe Joe Naugler has as well.  And I strongly doubt he is “disgusted and appalled” by much of anything except police officers and me.

Nicole would have more credibility if she would just read shit before commenting.

And I will be simply amazed if Dan Johnson’s widow fails to get elected to his seat in the legislature. Christians are so gullible.

 

 

 

Other Documents Part 1

This is just a collection of the remaining documents I have relating to Cleo, the farm, Carl McIntire and the subsequent sale to Bethel Baptist Church.

There are a very few that I have omitted altogether.  As I’ve noted before, my source didn’t go to Princeton to get these documents and rummage through a bazillion dusty boxes.  Instead, the source hired a grad student at Princeton as a researcher, and that person collected the documents relating to Cleo and the farm.

There were a few irrelevant documents in the bunch, including several pages of the program from a ministers’ conference held in Cape May, New Jersey. Cleo wasn’t involved in that. There was also some correspondence between Bob Jones and a person totally unrelated to any of this, about a subject completely unrelated. I left those out just because of space.

I have no idea what this adding machine tape is about.

The insurance stuff is sort of hilarious. The Christian Beacon had one hell of a time keeping that farm insured.

Cleo was a slob.

I just want to point out again that Cathy lies a lot.  She does not have that document in her possession.  She might have a copy, just like I have a copy, but that document is in the archives at Princeton.  She went there and took a photo of it.

They had trouble finding the farm. In fact, I strongly suspect that GPS was invented solely because somebody despaired of that insurance company ever finding anything.

And the Christian Beacon seems to have tried to weasel out of their taxes, unsuccessfully.

I’ve tried to group these documents, so the next installment will involve checks and check stubbs.  Lots of them.

This is riveting reading, I know.

 

Other Documents Part 2

Checks. Check stubbs.

I know it’s boring.

When you hire a researcher, it’s nice to get one who is so thorough, isn’t it?

You get the front of the check, and you get the back of the check.

Honestly, I don’t know who James Shaw is.  However, this was included so here it is.  Maybe Cathy can make it into some new clue to point to Richard Harris and his total guilt for every crime committed in the twentieth century.

Here is the handwritten note that Cathy presented several years ago as “proof” that she was being trafficked to McIntire.  She pointed to the word “orphan” (or “orphans).

I have no idea what most of that stuff is about.

I’ll add more to this if I find more.

Dr. Berg

This is Dr. Jim Berg (and I assume his wife) at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary yesterday where he received an earned doctorate.

He is in his mid-sixties, so he’s close to my age.

He is, quite frankly, not exactly one of my most admired people.  A long-time faculty member at Bob Jones University, I never knew him.  That’s because I’m slightly older than he is, so when I was there, he was in elementary school.  However, I’ve read enough about him to know that he and I would lock horns philosophically probably on every subject in the known universe.

Nor am I a fan of the school where he chose to do his doctoral work.  It’s Southern Baptist, and I’m not sure if Berg going there is indicative of BJU moving closer to the SBC, or the SBC moving closer to fundamentalism. But I do think he probably had to actually earn the degree. I don’t think they are doing the Liberty University “breathe, pay tuition, and we’ll give you a degree” thing.

I think his chosen field is sort of mushy as well.  Doctor of Ministry in Counseling, or some such thing.

But Jim Berg has never done a single thing to me or to anyone I care about.  He’s a religious fundamentalist.  In his mid-sixties, he put out the effort to earn a doctorate from a Southern Baptist seminary.

Good for him.

As I’ve said before (in one of those pieces I linked to above), we’re not going to rid the world of fundamentalist religion.  I’m pretty sure it’s not possible to do it, and I’m not even positive that it’s totally desirable.  I opted out, thank you very much, and I find much to be dismayed about regarding religion, but I get a perverse pleasure out of seeing Berg stick it in the eye of people like Cathy Harris and Camille Lewis. They have trashed him for a long, long time.

Camille has been oh, so proud of her earned doctorate for years. The one she has done almost nothing with.  It’s also in a mushy field (rhetoric).

Cathy couldn’t even make it through college, period.

Remember, you two, it’s Doctor Berg from now on.  Smile when you say it.

 

 

Control

What the fuck am I reading?  Seriously.  What is this?

Birth control changed the world. 

That’s not too broad a statement. It changed the whole world. It changed not only the lives of women, but also the economies of entire countries and created a world where more women are in college right now in America than men. Birth control has led directly to the empowerment and freedom of women. Without it, women would still be chained at home at the mercy of their menstrual cycles and their sexual partners’ desires.

I am very aware that there are forms of birth control that do not involve hormones, but they don’t work as well and are often not nearly as convenient (one reason they don’t work as well).

But hey, let’s look at the article in question.

Nicole, as usual, doesn’t read the shit she posts.  The article is citing one study. One study.

Never, ever, ever, ever form a settled opinion based on one study.  Scientists don’t do it and you shouldn’t either.  Science writers for the media sometimes don’t know much about science, and I’m being kind.

Don’t even form a beginning opinion based on a short article citing another news outlet.  Go to the source.

Here’s where WAVE3 got the stuff they are reporting.

The original summary is at the New England Journal of Medicine.

Here’s the gist of the thing.

Researchers thought they could reduce the risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives by reducing the dose.  It hasn’t worked out that way.  Science gets it wrong sometimes.  Unlike religion, science recognizes when they get it wrong and goes back to the drawing board.

BUT, and it’s a very big but, the risk of developing breast cancer due to hormonal birth control is extremely small.

Read that again.

The risk is small.  It was small to begin with.  It’s still small.  It hasn’t changed.

Foregoing birth control pills because you are afraid of getting breast cancer (assuming you have no other underlying risks) is like refusing to fly to Florida because you’re scared of planes and driving instead.  Your risk of dying from pregnancy is far, far greater than the risk of breast cancer you might incur from preventing that pregnancy.

Furthermore, birth control pills (hormonal therapy period) offers protection from other things that might kill you, like ovarian cancer, and in later life, heart disease.

As a disclaimer, I was prescribed birth control pills twice in my life.  Once was when I was young, for birth control.  I hated them.  Seriously hated them.  I quit taking them because I hated them.  As it turned out, I had one child and then we discovered that we had secondary infertility and didn’t need any birth control at all (every cloud has a silver lining).

When I was peri-menopausal, I was prescribed them again to smooth out my entry into menopause.  I still hated them.  I told my gynecologist what he could do with those horrible little pills and quit taking them.  He told me pretty bluntly that I was tossing out something that could protect from heart disease and I told him that I would rather die on the spot than take another one of those damned little pills.

In short, I hated them.

But I’m not all women, and I know that they have changed the world that I live in.

A woman who refused prenatal care, who refused to allow her unborn child to have the benefit of any medical care of any sort through the entirety of his very short uterus-confined life has no business offering any opinion whatever on any subject having to do with reproduction.  Period.  Anyone who gives her ridiculous opinion any credence whatever is brain-dead.

She has a lot of nerve saying that birth control pills aren’t “safe.”  She nearly died in childbirth and her baby did die. What’s not safe is Nauglering.

Nothing to Hide


You gotta love the opening line.

People who support the violation of ones rights, Will usually say something like “if you got nothing to hide got nothing to worry about”

Apart from the atrocious grammar and punctuation, she is characterizing an entire group of people as those who “support the violation of ones [sic] rights.”

She’s starting off the whole piece with a pejorative.

Just because somebody supports the rule of law does not mean they support the violation of anyone’s rights.

But then, we’re talking about Nicole here. She thinks she is the final authority on the subject of rights, specifically hers.  She gives not a single fuck about yours, or about her neighbors’, or about the rights of anyone who happens to disagree with her.

“It’s not always about about having something to hide. . .” she goes on to say.

So then, sometimes it actually is about having something to hide?  That’s interesting.

But it’s other things.

You know, their privacy being violated.

What privacy?

Nicole puts everything online including birthing photos.  The only thing we lack is a photo of her using a tampon or menstrual pad.  We’ve seen everything else.

We also lack photos of her and Joe having sex, but I suspect nobody wants to see those either.

Having to defend themselves is inconvenient and expensive.

Really?

How about the inconvenience Nicole caused for Lisa? She had to drive to Breck and Hardin counties multiple times to defend herself against bogus ridiculous “stalking” charges that were thrown totally out of court after Nicole made a fool of herself on videotape.

How about the $5000 it cost Lisa for legal representation?  How about Nicole bragging and gloating about it didn’t cost them anything at all?  How about that?

And it’s just awful being accused of illegal activity.

You know, like accusing me repeatedly of “stalking” her.    That sort of thing.

But then she adds insult to injury by calling Al’s employers repeatedly. Not once or twice, but over and over and over again, not with new complaints, but continuing to complain repeatedly about something that is demonstrably false.  Even after being assured that what she is alleging simply didn’t happen, that’s not good enough. She continues to call.

Then she asks a series of questions, there at the end.

Are you OK with being investigated interrogated even though you have nothing to hide?

Dunno. Never happened to me, so I have no idea.

Have you ever been wrongly accused of a crime?

By you, yeah.   By Cathy and her bogus Beth James and all that bunch, you betcha.  By the actual, real authorities? Nope.  I’ve never been correctly accused of a crime, either.

Did you strongly encouraged[sic] to take a plea deal or did you fight it?

Neither.  Never happened.

Do you have friends or family. . .?

No.

How concerned are you. . .?

Not even slightly.

Maybe that’s just because I’m one of those people who “support the violation of ones[sic] rights.”  Or maybe it’s because I don’t break the fucking law.