I am in the middle of re-reading Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here.

If you have never had the pleasure of reading this book, you’re in luck.  It’s in the public domain and available online here.

To give you a brief story line, just in case you’ve never read it, and taking care not to spoil the book for you, this quote is from a book written by a politician who is running for president of the United States (supposedly – the book, of course, is fiction).  You know how everyone who runs for president has to write a book first? Well, this fictional character did.

But when I read this, I burst out laughing.

See if you know why.


Isn’t the guy’s name great?

An Explanation

I am getting some messages from folks who are slightly exasperated with the ping-pong switch of subject matter here, so I want to explain what is going on. I’ve done this in comments, but maybe I need a separate post so I can refer to it as needed.

I have had three blogs going simultaneously.

To say that this is difficult to keep up with is an understatement.  Even though people have trouble believing it, I don’t do this full time. I do lots of things and some of those other things need my attention.

In addition, each of those blogs costs money.  Three blogs equal three times the cost of one blog. We’re talking upwards of $1000 annually. [In addition to these, I also own and manage two other websites and multiple domain names and have part-interest in a third which desperately needs to be redone.  My website-related bills are significant.]

So I decided to consolidate all three blogs.  I have been working on this for months.  One of them has reached the end of its contract and is gone. The other one is good until sometime in September, I think.  I’ve been moving those articles over here to create an archive.

The problem is that even if I back-date those pieces, when I publish them, if you are set up to be notified, you’ll get a notification.  I can’t help that.  It is just the way WordPress works.

The current flood of articles about Cathy Harris date back about three years.  There really are people who care about this and who do not want this material to disappear. I considered simply asking those who want the Romancing material to remain to pay for it, but quickly nixed that idea.  I am allergic to having other people pay for my blogs.  A small group of people did finance this blog in the beginning, but that only covered the first year or so and I am on my own now and will remain that way.

I think I’ve stated the reason for that before but it bears repeating. If other people pay the bills, then other people get to tell me what to write. Even if they don’t mean to do that, they can still influence me and I don’t want that. I do this on my own or not at all.

There will be another flood soon, about Camille Lewis.

There will be one after that about Linda Fossen.

And there will be a final one I call “Other” on the website.

Then they will all be archived and the only time any of them will be mentioned is if something occurs that needs to be updated.

I have not gotten any sort of legal notification from the Nauglers. I don’t expect to, as I haven’t done anything illegal and don’t intend to do so in the future. I am not intimidated by them in the slightest.

So, if the Romancing stuff does not interest you, ignore it.  It’s clearly tagged. I’m not actually writing any of it now. I wrote it years ago. All I’m doing is moving it, updating the links and creating a menu. I am on a time line, though, and need to get this done before the website goes dark.

I do Naugler-related stuff when there is something to say.  When it’s quiet, I’m quiet.

And I do articles about totally unrelated things whenever I get inspired to do it.

Comments about all this are fine. I know some people are okay with it all, some people have fallen down the Romancing rabbit hole, and others couldn’t be more bored. Just bear with me. I will get it all sorted out but I can’t devote 12 hours a day to it.

The Wizard of Boz





This one, a request to go public, was in a separate email thread. And of course, Boz granted that permission in the other thread, above.


Here are hot links to the links Leah put in her email exchange.

Dan Keller’s idiotic Storify page

The Fake Attorney

Article in the Greenville News Online and comments


Really, Dan.


Really, Camille.


Really, Maytag.


Really, St. Cat.  Enjoy that crow.

Dan Keller is wrong.

And so was I. The Wizard of Boz spoke out. Thank you, Boz Tchividjian.



As a brief response to the naysayers, who insist that no way in the world did Boz Tchividjian write an email to Leah Hayes (the clear implication is “of all people”) denying that Beth James was Charissa, here is the header from the pertinent email.


Obviously, this is teeny tiny pretty much unreadable print, but I wanted to include it so you can see that Leah’s email client didn’t want to wrap the text – and she didn’t know how to force it to do that.


Here is an enlarged shot, and you can see that doing that forced the creation of a scroll bar due to the refusal of the damn program to wrap.

And I realize that this creates a situation where you can’t read it all.


So, here’s the whole header, cut and pasted into Word so it’s clear and complete. I’ve blacked out Leah’s email address, but highlighted the information that is meaningful (at least from the little I know about headers.)

For those who don’t know, each email sent has some code (like that above) which is something like the tracking information on a Fed Ex package. It tells when the message was sent, where from, who from, and tracks it as it traverses the internet to arrive in the recipient’s inbox.

It is possible to fake headers. Doing so is called “spoofing.” And in those two sentences, you have read all that I know about spoofing. I have not a single clue how to do it. Nor does Leah. We, in fact, had to resort to Google to even figure out how to access a header in the first place.

Where does this leave us?

It leaves us here. We have shown you the statement from Boz, which was sent via email to Leah Hayes and then he gave her permission to let me have a copy.

The fact that the Queen and her Court don’t think Boz releases statements that way doesn’t change anything at all.

In fact, it raises a huge question: They have been desperate to see me put in jail now for months. I am not exaggerating even slightly. They have tried their best, down to inventing a fake profile of a fake attorney to repeatedly threaten me and others. They declared repeatedly and with great confidence that we on The List had all received cease and desist letters, presumably from Jeff Anderson, who supposedly took Cathy’s “case” for no money or something like that.

Now is their chance.

If Leah, or I, or both of us are faking emails from a former prosecutor, and then spoofing the header, and if they are all besty buddies with The Wizard, why don’t they just call him? Surely he would want to know. Surely he would fire off one of those real cease and desist letters, telling me to stop it right now.

But you see, they refused to admit it when we proved that DJ did not commit suicide. Fossen has an article on her blog that continues to accuse Beth Murschell of causing that fake suicide, right now, today, all these months later. They refused to admit it when we showed that Cathy Harris never spoke to the entire Pennsylvania legislature about anything, ever. They refused to admit it when the day came and went (back in September 2014) when they were certain we’d all gotten lawyer letters. When I very clearly documented that Cathy is a plagiarist, Jason Benner not only had no comment (I didn’t expect one), but he didn’t take down the copied article. He left it right there with Cathy quite prominently described as the author. When I showed that “Concerned Pastor” is undoubtedly not Richard Harris, as they have claimed for a long, long time, and in fact, is much more likely to be Cathy herself, not a peep from them.

When I showed that Camille Lewis is, in fact, William Peck, and that she used this fake identity to mock Jocelyn Zichterman mercilessly, Camille does nothing at all. The William Peck Facebook page remains in place. It’s irrelevant to discuss whether or not Jocelyn was guilty of anything. What is important is that Camille uses fake identities to stalk people. And when I tried to contact Camille, early on, to express my very real and valid concerns that she uses stories and claims them as “scholarship” when they are nothing more than unsubstantiated internet rumors, she refused to talk to me.

So, I don’t exactly hold my breath waiting for one of them to have an “Aha!” moment and admit anything.

Any reasonable person can evaluate all this for themselves. And I only really care about reasonable people.

image courtesy of David Dennis at Creative Commons

But, Dan, by all means, keep typing. When you get diarrhea of the keyboard, it’s like Christmas for me.

The Queen must be so proud.



Return to Archive

Letters From Dad

There is a comment that was made on several different blogs a year or so ago that is floating around, being produced as supposed proof that Cathy Harris’ stories of abduction, abuse, and physical injury are true. It has arisen yet again, this time over on the Truth Seeking 2nd Edition page on Facebook (now defunct), so I am going to address it here.

Here’s the text:

drrichardharris29@gmail.com Submitted on 2013/02/21 at 5:49 am

I’m in the position to write, I know Cathy Harris. I’ve known her a large portion of her life. She isn’t lying about what happened to her at the hands of that evil woman, Cleo. If anything, Cathy minimizes what she suffered on that farm.

Knowing that. I think Cathy was first used by the likes of Jocelyn Zichterman. Jocelyn was the one who convinced Cathy there was some grand conspiracy. Her adoptive pastor father had covered up the whole matter and allowed Cathy to suffer for years. It was ALL HIS FAULT, not Cleo’s fault, Cathy’s abductor. When Jocelyn Z. starting making claims that became more and more bazaar, Cathy, quietly tried to jump off Jocelyn’s crazy train. It was then, Jocelyn turned on Cathy and became meaner than a junk yard hound that hasn’t been fed for a week.

Then came this Camille Lewis and eventually Jeffrey Hoffman. They act like they’re Cathy’s friends. I wonder where they’ll be when Cathy has another nervous breakdown, or ends up hospitalized from depression and PTSD. Or worse yet, commits suicide…. I’ll tell you what I think will happen. Camille and Jeffrey (and the rest of this group of users, like this blog) will act as if they don’t know Cathy.

She is being used. They’ve convinced her to speak out. But none of them are really care about her, or really want to help her (or in my opinion any of the other victims they claim to care so much about..) Camille and Jeffrey will just move on and find their next poster child for their cause.

I don’t think it will do anyone any good to claim Cathy hasn’t been abused. She’s pretty shy about showing off her scars, (which is quite understandable,) but these types off allegations are only playing into the hands of those using her. All they have to do is convince Cathy to show GRACE the burn, whip, and other scars. Cathy doesn’t need to take her blouse off to show the whip marks on her back, all she would have to do is roll up her sleeves, or just lift her skirt a short distance, or even take off her shoes. Cathy is covered with *real* scars from her face to her toes. Literal scars from burns (Cleo caused third-degree burns over more than 50 % of her body), to whip marks, to knife wounds. Cathy of all people doesn’t need to be used by the likes of Camille Lewis and Jeffrey Hoffman. She’s suffered enough. It’s time you all do what they claim to what to do…. let her heal.

My, my. Oh, my. Proof. We have proof. This message, as I said, was posted in multiple places on or about the same day in 2013. In the case of the copy that was posted to the Facebook page, the sender is identified as “drrichardharris29@gmail.com.” This means that somebody created a gmail account using that name. The person may or may not have been Dr. Richard Harris, Cathy Harris’ adoptive father.

About the same day, the same message appeared on another blog, this time with the name “Concerned Pastor.” The IP address was from Hatboro, PA. Oh, my. That has to be Dr. Richard Harris, doesn’t it? It’s proof. Isn’t it?

Well, consider this :





Well, well, well. Here we have another message from dear old Dad. Or do we? How would we know? Both of these are floating about the internet, both claim to be from Dr. Richard Harris.

There are three possibilities here. Let’s consider them all.

Both messages are real.

I suppose that’s possible, but I think it’s highly unlikely. The writing is very different. In the first message, the supposed Dr. Harris insists that Cathy is fragile, might harm herself, was horribly abused and is being terribly used by various people. In the second email, he says that she needs to fend for herself.

The first message is written in a very disjointed fashion, using lots of clichés like “meaner than a junkyard dog” (where have you heard that line before, and is it really likely that an elderly pastor would have that easily roll off his keyboard?) Do you suppose he’d misuse the word “bazaar” when he meant “bizarre”? In the other email, the writing is deliberate and composed and far more educated. It’s much more like the letter of a father trying to explain a bit of tough love to a daughter.

One message is a fake. The other is real.

This is certainly possible. How would one go about determining which was which, though? Both messages use email addresses from online free email providers. Either one could be easily faked. The bottom email could be entirely faked from start to finish by somebody with enough computer skills to make a word processor document appear like a printed out email. But the top one could have been sent by anyone who happened to be located in/near Hatboro, PA. That means it was Richard Harris, for real, doesn’t it? Well, it doesn’t. Lots of people live in or near Hatboro, PA, including Cathy Harris.

Is it reasonable to believe that Richard Harris went to the trouble to hastily compose a sort of rant about Cathy, and then posted it to multiple obscure blogs on the internet, all on or about the same day, cutting and pasting the same message over and over again? Why would he do this and use the email address that supposed clearly identifies who he is and then say “Her adoptive pastor father had covered up…”? Why wouldn’t he have said “They accused ME of…” Of course, on at least one of the blogs involved, his email never appears and the only identification is the screen name “Concerned Pastor.”

Both messages are fake.

Obviously this is a possibility. After all, these stuff is circulating through a community of people who regularly engage in using fake identities, make fake blogs and fake Facebook pages, and then congregate in who knows how many secret groups whispering about each other endlessly. Almost nobody involved seems to think this sort of subterfuge and deception is even odd. It certainly isn’t considered immoral.

When faced with internet rumors, it’s a much better policy to examine all the evidence, and discard anything that cannot be fully vetted.

Amd most certainly, this is not what you do – insinuate that this completely unvetted, absolutely unproven, comment somehow indicates that the man who wrote it raped or otherwise abused Cathy Harris. Not if you have a shred of intellectual honesty. And this person, using a fake name, of course, implies over and over again that s/he is a lawyer.


Rather than wondering which message is real, it’s more reasonable to suppose that nothing, at least when it comes to this particular group of folks, is real.

…perception is reality to everybody. – Dan Keller

Uh. No. It’s not.



With this and a few others like it, I have confirmation that the second letter, the one via email, from Richard Harris is in fact authentic. Thanks.

Return to Archive

Victimizing the Dead

This has to be the worst thing I’ve seen from Cathy Harris and her supporters ever. It’s a complicated story, which I will try to keep as visual as possible to simplify it. In addition, it requires that I leave the first names of some of the people involved in place, to minimize confusion. Those who know the major players already know their names. Those who do not won’t care one way or another. I have chosen to black out a few names of people who are tangential to the story. If you have specific questions, please feel free to contact me with them.

In the seemingly never-ending search for dirt to smear on a critic of Cathy’s named Beth, the people I think of as her “Urchins” (credit to Christopher Peterman for that) came up with the little story that follows. (See note at the bottom of the page.) I’m going make comments about all this as we go.


So. We have what appears to be the text of a message from some as-yet unnamed person claiming that some other as-yet unnamed person “abandoned” her somewhere (the hospital? the airport? who can tell?) But our handy-dandy administrator (another unnamed person) very helpfully points out that the alleged meanie in this story is “a person from the CABAL OF DIABOLICAL NARCISSISTS.” OMG. That sounds really awful. And scary. Are you scared yet? How about outraged?

But in addition, just in case we miss it somehow, this text has been altered. There’s a bit of commentary added within it, the words in brackets – “[one of the Cathy-bashing club].”

The sufferer didn’t use those words in brackets because that phrase hadn’t come into existence yet. We aren’t told when this message was sent, but I’ll give you a spoiler. It was approximately a year ago, in the summer of 2013.


Since we’re dealing with the Urchins here, naturally nobody questions any of this. They just start piling on.


So what do we know now? We know that the supposed meanie here, the person who theoretically “abandoned” our sufferer, is Beth. And we know that the sufferer is named DJ. We also know that the unnamed admin knows who everyone is in this sordid little drama, because s/he goes to the trouble to say, “I wasn’t going to use names.” Therefore, s/he must have the names to use and opted not to, but oh, gee whiz, everyone already said it, so what the hell…

And Beth is roundly condemned by one and all. Urchins, unite! And whatever you do, do the form of “research” that you’ve been taught by that renowned Scholar, Camille K. Lewis –don’t bother to vet the story. Instead, just say “Wow.”

And yes, I’m still adding pages to my web site. You guys keep providing me with material. Can’t be helped.

But the sordid little saga continues. We now have Cathy Harris entering the scene, riding in on a white charger to save the day!


How nice. It’s all heavily redacted, but we know that it’s a conversation between Cathy and DJ. It’s also clearly dated August 13, and Cathy is going to “see what I can do.” And then Cathy asks “Who abandoned you?”

Aha! The Big Question. Cathy asks it. Will we get an answer? Will we?

Of course we will. We have our handy dandy admin. S/he will come to the rescue, complete with an “answer.”


Well. There you are. Straight from the horse’s mouth, sort of. “It was Beth.” The answer to the question “Who abandoned you?” And not only did Beth abandon her, Beth is also evil. She is plotting against Cathy. Oh my. Plotting and planning – a year ago. What a truly evil woman. Right?

Only, there are a few teensy little problems.

Note how everything is snipped away. No identifying name to be obscured, no date or time. Just bare bones text. So actually we do not know for certain if this was the answer to the question “Who abandoned you?” Why would DJ be “ashamed to tell” Cathy that? We really do not even know if DJ wrote this or not.

But the text below helps out, doesn’t it? DJ says “she(Beth) is the one who abandoned me.”

scissorsA good question here is who did the snipping of these segments? Did Cathy send them this way to the admin? Did she send them to a third party who then gave them to the admin? Did she send them as a complete exchange and somebody else snipped them? Why snip it like that? Why not leave the question “Who abandoned you?” and then show where our unnamed sufferer replies “It was Beth”? Why the snipping?


But it gets worse. The admin then says something cryptic- “…were you hoping Cathy would go the same way?” What does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. DJ died several months after these events. Cause of death is pretty much unknown at this point, at least as far as I know, however there doesn’t appear to be any suspicion of foul play. She was found by her sons in her apartment. The admin is here accusing Beth of wishing Cathy would die. You didn’t misread that. S/he’s accusing Beth of hoping that Cathy would die just like DJ did.

And then one of the tangential Urchins, who has nothing to do with any of this except morbid curiosity, I guess, tosses in this gem:


As I am writing this, that comment has been there for more than 36 hours, and nobody has offered a reply or an explanation or anything. Nobody has corrected the really horrible implication here. Nobody has said anything, and they’ve gone on to fry other fish. (See note at the bottom of the page.)

After all, they’ve made their accusations, presented what they call “proof,” and made their nasty comments.

But what is the real story?

What really happened? Did Beth take DJ to the airport and toss her out on the blacktop as she circled the drive, and leave her lying there in agony, with her wound splitting open? Did Beth walk out of her hospital room and say, “Fuck you. I’m outta here. Get home the best way you can, bitch”? Did Beth decide that she had too much plotting and planning to do arranging for Cathy to die to be bothered with DJ?

Inquiring minds want to know. What kind of evil, awful person is this Beth?

When you don’t know, you know what you do? You ask. And you don’t ask one person. You ask several people. It’s really not hard. You just ask.

Might somebody tell you some lies? Sure. Might they get some stuff wrong, or might you misunderstand some of it? Sure. But if you ask around, you find out that a far more plausible answer emerges.

DJnotBeth1This is the beginning of a private message (used with permission of Anonymous – DJ cannot, of course, give her permission) between DJ and Anonymous. Note the date. August 13. Where have we seen that before? Oh, yes, in the conversation between Cathy and DJ above, where Cathy asks the question “Who abandoned you?” I’m including all the conversation here, as I received it. It’s only divided because of the size of the computer monitor used to do the screen shots. I’m keeping in all the dates and times and everything and even overlapping where I could so that you can see it’s one continuous conversation. In this first section we see that DJ does, in fact, have a smidgen of an issue with Beth.


What? What am I reading? “I knew she and April were helping.” Note the times. One minute between these two comments from Anonymous. “I knew she and April were helping.”

Who in the hell is April?

But then, DJ replies: “She wasn’t the one who abandoned me. It was her friend.” “It was her friend.”

And the great part. Please note it. “She (Beth) knows why… but she refuses to tell me. So, to me, that’s just as bad.” Remember that.



So now where are we? We don’t have two people involved in this. We have three. Who is April?


Come to find out, April is a woman who lives in the same state where Beth and DJ were living at the time. DJ refers to April as “her friend,” meaning Beth’s friend, but DJ actually knew April too. They seem to have all had connections at the same Christian school. Beth’s first connection with DJ via Facebook personally (apart from seeing her on groups) was in March 2013. I won’t post screen shots of those conversations because they are irrelevant, but they do show that Beth didn’t have a long-term relationship with DJ.

When Beth saw that DJ was very nervous about having this surgery, she mentioned their mutual friend, April, who had some experience in home health, as a possible helper. A win-win, Beth thought. April gets a short-term job, DJ gets some help. The problem was, though, that April had no reliable transportation and lived about a four-hour drive from DJ.

No problem, right? Beth stepped up and volunteered to drive April up to DJ’s home in northern Florida. Surgery was scheduled for a few days later in Ft. Lauderdale.


I’ll let DJ tell you about it.

So, after the drive up to DJ’s and a nice dinner at Chili’s, Beth went home. And that was the end of Beth’s involvement in the care of DJ.


DJ was appreciative after the fact.

So, what happened? Damned if I know. Something went wrong between an employer (DJ) and her employee (April). And April quit her job. This appears to have happened at the hospital in Ft. Lauderdale, after the surgery and before DJ was scheduled to fly back home. If you want to know more, you’ll probably have to talk to April. One thing to keep in mind is that no hospital anywhere allows a patient to leave if the patient cannot care for herself or doesn’t have competent help available. It’s absolutely irrelevant to this situation, though, because April is not Beth.

But, but, but, DJ said that Beth knew why April quit and wouldn’t tell DJ, so Beth is just as bad, isn’t she? That’s what DJ said, isn’t it?

Suppose your neighbor, Bill (who you know only slightly), comes over to your house one day and says, “I have a leak in my basement plumbing and I do not know how to fix it. I think it’s going to be a job for a real plumber.” And you say, “Gee, I went to high school with a guy who is a plumber. His name is Fred. Maybe he can help you. Let me get his number for you.”

And your neighbor calls Fred and Fred comes out to fix the plumbing. And during the fix-it job, Fred and Bill realize they need a third pair of hands, and you volunteer to help. You hold a wrench or two and the job is done. You go home to watch the game.


A week later, Bill comes over to your house, just irate. “That damn Fred. That SOB. He did a terrible job. My plumbing still leaks, and you should see the bill!” You say, “Gee, I’m sorry to hear that, Bill.”

How are you supposed to respond if Bill says, “I think you should pay Fred’s bill and furthermore, you should arrange to have my plumbing fixed right. After all, Fred is your friend and you recommended him”?

That, folks, is what happened. Beth tried to facilitate some help for DJ, a woman she barely knew; went to the trouble to drive four hours to take April to DJ’s place, and had done her good deed, and went home. Then when it went sour, for whatever reason, DJ demands that Beth tell her why, and furthermore, seems to feel that Beth somehow owed her something.

But regardless of what DJ thought about Beth, the fact remains that somebody, either Cathy or one of her Urchins, decided that it would be a good idea to try to alter the story and use a dead woman to lie about a living one. And that is low. Just about as low as it gets.


Yeah, Camille. I’m very afraid it is exactly that.


When this page went up yesterday, I had included links to the original stuff posted over on Truth Seeking 2nd Edition. It appears that they have scrubbed the false accusations and commentary, which is good news indeed. As my husband wryly said, “Maybe they’ve actually found some truth this time.”

It’s not entirely gone. The scrubber missed some.

Oh, my, my. I have been informed that “nothing was scrubbed.” It’s just supposedly hidden. Only it’s not hidden. You figure it out, because I can’t. It’s hidden but I can see it. And then of course, what follows is just some ranting about how evil I am, along with some other people.


April has decided to step forward. Good for her. Here is the last message she received from DJ via Facebook. Note the day: August 2, 2013. Note the comment “It’s good to be home.” This is after her surgery, after she’s arrived back home. After.


Not only is she not mad at anyone, she’s thankful for the help she received. And lest anyone try to intimate that this wasn’t really written to April, she specifically mentions “you and Beth” coming back up to her area to “hang out.”

Facts. They are annoying when you’ve set your heart on a fake story with a fake plot and fake accusations against another person. I know it’s irritating as hell to have people come forward and point out that you were lying, just plain lying, but that’s what happens in the big real world. And for whatever it’s worth, it’s exactly 11:57 a.m. right now as I’m writing this. I think that is just ironic as everything in light of the Great Prayer Session that is just ending. I guess “God” really, really likes the truth, after all.

And I am not obscuring DJ’s name or photo anymore. This has gone into libelous territory. DJ cannot be hurt by any of this, but Beth can and is being slandered terribly.


Return to archive list

The Evidence

 The Check

In spite of Cathy’s loud protestations that she hasn’t named her abusers (Comment Moderation notice), she keeps producing supposed evidence that ties her guardian, Cleo Smith, to the ministry and person of Carl McIntire, with the implication being that Carl McIntire was one of her abusers.

Carl McIntire was a fundamentalist preacher, radio broadcaster and political activist during much of the Cold War era. He seems to have started the long, slow slide into obscurity and near bankruptcy in about 1970. He died in 2002.

Cathy claims that McIntire paid Cleo for years to abuse her. She writes about this, but doesn’t use McIntire’s name. However, on Facebook, she repeatedly produces “evidence” to prove the McIntire claim.


Here’s the check.

In case that’s all really hard to read, it’s from the Christian Beacon (which was the McIntire organization’s newsletter), payable to Cleo Magsam (her maiden name) Smith, in the amount of $1500, dated December 8, and we don’t get to know what year this was — it’s pixelated out. Since the Christian Beacon was in existence from 1936 until 1976, which was about the time of Cleo’s death, this check could have come from any of those years.

The pixelation across the bottom is the MICR coding, which came into wide use in about 1960 and was required by 1967. However, the amount obviously was written by an automated system, so that would date it probably into the seventies, narrowing the window considerably and putting the check in the time period Cathy is claiming. I have no guess as to why Cathy doesn’t want us to see the year. Nor does she want us to see the signature, although the handwriting looks female to me.

The note on the bottom left says: “Monthly payment thru December 1st.”

So what does all this mean?

It means that for some reason, the Christian Beacon paid Cleo Smith $1500 for something, and the something was monthly. Since the check was written on December 8, and it says the purpose is to pay the monthly payment through December 1, and we don’t have any years, there are really only a couple of possibilities.

1. The Christian Beacon was late.

2. The payment was an annual payment paid in a lump sum once a year. I do that with insurance. I don’t make monthly payments. I pay the whole thing for a year so I don’t have to bother with it. If that’s the case here, then they paid up to December 1, XXXX, (which would include the whole month of December) and were sending a check for the following year. That works out to $125/month.

In 1970ish dollars, $1500 per month would be astronomical for almost anything, and I’d include rape in there as well.

So, what did Cleo have that Carl McIntire’s organization wanted enough to pay her $125/month? Cathy wants us to infer that he wanted to rape her.

But Cathy also tells us that Cleo owned real estate in Philadelphia/ran a real estate business. She had rental properties, Cathy tells us. And Carl McIntire held “Cow Pasture Rallies” at her farm.

So could this be a rent check?

One other thought: What is the likelihood that this man, with pretty wide holdings, lots of businesses and ministries, would get a secretary to make out a check to pay a pimp for the use of a child for rape? That check went through the business’s system, its bank account. It had to be accounted for as an expense.

I bet Ted Haggard paid his male prostitute with cash.

And an itty bitty update

Somebody helpfully pointed out something I overlooked. This purports to be a cancelled check from the Christian Beacon written to Cleo Smith. If I write you a check, and you cash it (as this one appears to have been cashed, with the nice “PAID” stamp on it), do you get to keep the cancelled check? No, you don’t. The cancelled check returns to me. It was written on my account. A check from the Christian Beacon was returned after it was cashed to the Christian Beacon.

So how did Cathy get it? They closed down in about 1976 when Cathy was about twelve. Did she go dumpster diving? Did she walk into their office and threaten to notify the police that Carl had raped her unless they turned over a cancelled check that proves nothing at all? Did Cleo demand that she get all these cancelled checks “proving” she’d pimped out Cathy for years and then Cathy found this check in her effects?

It makes no sense.

Unless it’s a rent check and was somehow left behind when the tenants moved out.

And another update, July 27, 2017. 

I know all about the check now.

The Orphan List


This photo of a handwritten scrap of paper was posted with the caption “Who is the orphan?” The conclusion we are supposed to reach, of course, is that the “orphan” is Cathy and that this is money paid to Cleo to rape her.

The paper appears to be an old envelope, with Cleo Smith’s name and address in the center. There’s also the name “Lew Canby” (which is surely “Lou” – I doubt there’s any argument about that) below it. Lew’s name is also in the upper right hand corner with two entries, similar to those on the List. And there’s a note in the bottom left corner in red ink. But the center of attention is the list on the left.

Here’s what the List says:

5-4-70 5.00 NS
15.00 KO
10.00 Radio
6-30-70 10.00 Radio
10.00 Shelton
8-4-70 45.00 WXUR

10-7-70 5.00 Vic March

9-1-70 10.00 WXUR

12-15-70 35.00 orphan(s)

Since the List is handwritten, it’s hard to tell if the word is “orphan” or plural: “orphans.” It really doesn’t make a difference.

Cathy wants us to believe that Carl McIntire paid Cleo $35.00 for pimp money.

But if that’s true, what in the world are all the other entries? What is “radio”? And what/who is “Vic March”? Are these people or organizations that McIntire is paying as well?

These are organizations or events that Carl McIntire was pushing. I have no idea about “NS” or “KO” and the amounts involved are very small. But all the rest are McIntire holdings. “Radio” is obviously his radio program. “Shelton” is Shelton College, a small college he bought and moved to Cape May, NJ in 1963, and operated, moving it to Florida and then back to Cape May and finally closing in the 1980’s because it lacked accreditation (oh, gee, does this sound familiar or what?)

“WXUR” is the radio station that McIntire established near where Cleo lived outside Philadelphia.

And “Vic March”? That’s not a person. That means “Victory March.” Carl McIntire held several of these during the Vietnam War. They were the opposite of the war protest marches. There was one on October 3, 1970, just a few days before the date of the entry on the List.

So what is the List? Was McIntire paying money to his own holdings? I sort of doubt that.

This is not a list of money being paid to Cleo Smith. This is a list of donations that Cleo was making to McIntire’s organizations.

I make lists like this one every year, sometime in March, usually. Note that every entry is in 1970 and they go more or less from early in the year to December. She’s listing her donations for her taxes. She’s doing her taxes. Or she’s getting the information ready for her tax preparer. This is a list of what Cleo donated to the McIntire holdings in 1970. I make such lists on any scrap of paper I find lying about, as did Cleo.

But what is “orphan(s)”?



And this.


From the linked history:

One of the highlights of the radio ministry has been the annual Korean Christmas Offering.

And when does Cleo donate $35.00 to the “orphans”?

On December 15.

Why go to all this trouble to show that the Check is not a pimp check and the List is not a payment for rape?

I like the truth. That’s why.

Return to archive list

The Fake Writer


A blogger named Jason Benner published an article several months ago. It’s about bitterness. I’ll let Jason tell you all about it in his own words.

[NOTE:  Jason Benner’s blog appears to be gone.  That’s good.]


The date in the upper left corner – March 26, 2014 – is the date that Jason published this. The date in the body of the article, below the words “Part I” – October 30, 2010 – is the date Cathy wrote the article. She even tells us the time of day – 12:34 a.m. She was burning the midnight oil writing, wasn’t she?

Part II was written November 2, 2010 at 8:31 a.m.

I have no idea what the exact times mean or why they are there.

FirstParagraphCathyHere is the first paragraph of Part I of Cathy’s essay. I am not going to include the whole thing here, in part for legal reasons, but also because it’s pretty long. However you can read the full content at Jason’s blog. [Blog is down, so link is broken.]

otherbloglogoHere’s another blog. I don’t know who this belongs to. It’s a little confusing trying to figure out who wrote what or if it’s all the same author or if it’s a composite mashup.

But whoever it belongs to, they liked Cathy’s article too, and published it on April 6, 2011.

You can read it all for yourself if you like. [This link is working as of March, 2017]



I’ve gotten some information about this blog. It appears to belong to Alan Sanchez from San Diego. He seems to have a habit of grabbing articles and posting them without the writer’s permission. If true, then it’s entirely possible that this person grabbed Cathy’s plagiarized article and posted it without telling her. This would mean that the plagiarizer was plagiarized. And that’s just hilarious in my opinion. I wonder if he can expect special visitors with shiny badges any time soon.

chucklesAnd, a third blog. This one is Cathy herself. [Note: this is another blog that is down, at least for now.]

And just in case there’s somebody out there who doesn’t already know that Cathy Harris is Chuckles Travels, here you go…


Cathy published her article here a month after it was published on the odd blog above – May 6, 2011.

So, to recap: Cathy wrote the article in October, 2010 and finished it on November 2. It was published in April, 2011 on one blog, in May, 2011 on another, and finally in March, 2014 on Jason’s blog. There may be others, but that’s all I could find using Google.

FreeBelieversLogoBut there is yet another blog. This one is at least in part owned by Darin Hufford.


It seems that Darin is clairvoyant. He published this, as you can see, on March 1, 2010. That’s eight full months before Cathy even wrote it.

How could that be?

How did he do it?

This is just paragraph one. The full article is here.


One of the most telling things about all this is encompassed in these examples.

In this paragraph, Darin tells us about an article he wrote and the problems he encountered because of the use of the word “bitterness.”Cathy2In Cathy’s version, she’s not content to just have her “post” misinterpreted. Nope. She lost Facebook friends over it. She got personal messages. That’s because everything she does is more, bigger, greater, and more dramatic, even when she plagiarizes.

Darin3In another part of the essay, Darin describes the reaction of some folks to one of his sermons.


And in the most astonishing example of hubris I believe I have ever seen, Cathy provides us with a link to a sermon. Isn’t that nice? But it’s not the right sermon.

And in the Chuckles copy of the same essay, she links to yet a different sermon.

Darin’s sermon can be seen/heard here. It’s in several parts. I already lost my religion and sermons give me hives, so I didn’t listen/watch.


Maybe Jason Benner would do better to quit worrying about helping Cathy and start worrying about getting that totally plagiarized article off his blog. Maybe everyone should quit worrying about me getting “special visitors with shiny badges” and cease-and-desist letters, and start worrying about Cathy getting them.

I am sending Darin Hufford a link to this page as soon as it is published. I will also inform him that I have complete screen shots of every word that was posted in all three blogs, along with contact information.

Return to archive list

Barney Cometh

Law enforcement, the FBI, grand juries, lawsuits, arrests, jail, cease-and-desist, special visitors with shiny badges, letters from lawyers, more lawyers, more law enforcement. On and on and on it goes.

Because it’s totally illegal to disagree with somebody, or to not believe what they claim.

Dan, it’s not a blog. It’s a web site.

Oh, my. Does this mean I’m going to be… uh… executed?

This is hilarious. Here we have these fundamentalist Christians telling me what a “real atheist” is like. This has to be the first time in my life I’ve ever seen someone like that say that “real atheists” (as opposed to what? fake ones?) are known for “civility” and “abide by the law.”

The truth, of course, is that “real atheists” simply do not believe in the existence of gods. That says nothing whatever about “civility” or the law.

And yeah, we do believe in free thought. And freedom of expression. And freedom of speech. And all that stuff. Unlike Truth-Seeking Graduates…

The FBI? How scary! J. Edgar and his buddies… I said I didn’t believe Cathy Harris and the FBI cares about that. Who would ever have thought it?

Oh, Wow Wow, for pete’s sake, Act 105 doesn’t have anything to do with any of this.

And here we have the most bizarre series of innuendos and accusations I have ever seen.

They have talked to “all my classmates”? What classmates? For my entire life? Or when I was at Bob Jones Academy, fifty years ago? They’ve tracked down every single one of them and talked with them about… what?

Terror and trafficking? Every single day? Seriously?

But in typical fashion (this is a hallmark of their innuendo), they don’t really say. They just sort of vaguely accuse.

And then they toss in a disclaimer. If I say that I don’t know what in the hell they are talking about, well, I’m lying. They know. They provide no details, no proof, no evidence of any kind. Nothing. But I’m supposed to know what they are talking about, and if I say I don’t, I’m lying. You know that because they say so. “They,” of course, is an unidentified person who hides behind the admin’s cloak of a Facebook page.

And they taunt. Vague. No details. No real facts. Just innuendo and taunting. This is what they do.

And in this one, it’s Maytag talking, or at least, we’re led to believe that it’s Maytag. Who knows for sure? Who even cares at this point? But we’re told it’s a “pedo ring.” A ring of pedophiles operating at Bob Jones University? Fifty years ago? I would assume they are all dead now, if they ever existed.

I was at Bob Jones Academy while I was 13 to 15 years old. I had no idea then what a “pedophile” even was. I knew the facts of life, but not much more than that. At any rate, with no evidence and no proof and nothing but innuendo, it’s a pretty nasty claim to be making in public, but they’re good at making claims about people who are dead.

We start here with the supposed “special visitors.” There are a whole bunch of these.

I do not mention them because I have never laid my eyes on them. No special visitors. Visitors, yes. Neighbors, friends, you name it. But nobody with a “shiny badge” except our next-door neighbor who happens to be a deputy sheriff. He comes over frequently to share some beer on our porch, especially on nice summer evenings. However, he is rarely in uniform.

This was posted on September 4, 2014. No letter. Nobody that I know has gotten any mail that was unusual. This is very upsetting to them, we can tell.

And then there are the pleas for us to stop with the phone calls. No phone calls, folks. None. I have made only a couple of phone calls in the last week, neither related to any of this.

This, as near as I can tell, refers to a picture of Cathy Harris and Camille Lewis on a motorcycle. Cathy posted it all around Facebook for a while. But this one was Photoshopped with blood and gore and horrible stuff and oh my god, it was up on Pinterest in Jeffrey Hoffman’s account.

People reported it and it was removed.

Or, “law enforcement” found it while doing “surveillance” and removed it. Or both. Or neither. Who knows?

Because Jeffrey Hoffman has never had a Pinterest account. Nor have I for that matter.

And Jeffrey is not known for making fake profiles and fake accounts and fake identities. But you know who is an expert at it? And you know who else?

The veiled threats go on, but you get the idea. We’re all going to jail. Exactly who “we” are isn’t ever really made clear, however I do know that I am one of “we.” We’ve been reported to “law enforcement” over and over again for all sorts of crimes.

And I know this is true because St. Catherine herself says so.
So what are we to make of this?

You could have fooled me, Maytag.

Tomatoes Again


First, if you prepare a wee tiny garden like this (or even a super big one), you have to weed the damned thing beyond the very edge of it.  I know that’s more work, but you do.

Second, the two tomato plants in the foreground (one just below and to the left of the stupid watermark, and the other just above it) might actually be spaced more or less okay.  The big bunch in the center of the photo looks like somebody just dropped a handful of seed and said, “Fuck it. That will do.”

Third, why is there always trash in every single photo?  Always.  Why can’t somebody, anybody, just pick up the damned trash?

Fourth, that is not “sixty” tomato plants even if you count using “unschooling” rules.  But then, math is hard.  Of course, maybe somebody read my piece about tomatoes and rethought that ridiculous idea.

Fifth, gardening has not been a priority at the Blessed Cesspool ever.

Sixth, I don’t feel even slightly bad about laughing.

The Fittest

This is lazy blogging, but Dr. Amy Tuteur already says this and does so beautifully.

Advocates of natural parenting, natural eating and natural healing wax rhapsodic about the perfection of nature. But that’s because they imagine that the blinkered view they prefer is reality when it is nothing more than a comforting fantasy.

Go read it.