|| By FITSNEWS || This website was fully prepared to defend socially conservative reality TV parents Jim Bob Duggar and Michelle Duggar during the recent child molestation scandal involving their eldest son, Josh Duggar. Not because we have any affinity for social conservatives, but because we viewed the matter as private – and resolved.
The more we learned about the case, though, the less we cared for the Duggars’ handling of the situation.
“It seems abundantly clear at this point the Duggar family engaged in a (successful) effort to keep this scandal under wraps as their reality fame grew,” we wrote at the time.
We don’t think the Duggars did anything illegal, mind you … we simply believe they chose to bury the scandal in an effort to cash in on their newfound fortune and fame. Well the secret is out now … and the Duggars are reaping what they sowed.
Unfortunately, rather than acknowledging their culpability (and dishonesty) in the process, Jim Bob and Michelle are seeking to pin the blame on the woman who “outed” them.
Take this widely circulated excerpt from a socially conservative website, which makes note of the fact that Kathy O’Kelley, the police chief who released the records implicating Josh Duggar, is a lesbian …
If a crazed lesbian was looking for a conservative public figure to demonize, Jim Bob would be a good one. And what better way to hurt him than to permanently destroy the reputation of his oldest son and force his daughters to relive their abuse all over again in the public eye?
Share this report if you think it is deplorable that Springdale Police Chief Kathy O’Kelley likely went after the Duggars maliciously because they are a conservative Christian family.
We can’t speak to O’Kelley’s motivations for releasing the records. She was probably wrong to do so – and we feel genuine sorrow over the pain Josh Duggar’s sisters are doubtless reliving as a result of her decision.
But at the end of the day, the Duggars brought this on themselves. And exploiting homophobia in an effort to pass the buck for their failure is inexcusable.
128 comments
It is too late for the Republican party to divorce social conservatives, so much of their success relies on the religious right that they have to start carrying shit like this with them into elections and sacrifice any voter who is even slightly moderate.
Carrying what “shit”? When democrats get caught with their pants down or in a similar scandal, it becomes a resume enhancement.
Because you get people like Mike Huckabee patting child molesters like Josh Duggar on the back and making people think that the Republican party is some kind of freak show.
Maybe you should actually read the full statement that Huckabee gave regarding the whole situation, because you haven’t actually read it if you think it was just “patting child molesters like Josh Duggar on the back”.
actually i glad huck is a republican , thats right where he belongs with palin, duggars, that old actor who talked to a empty chair last election
Ah, you mean that old actor who is still, hands down, one of the best directors in the country?
That stunt was kind of dumb, and it flopped, but it was political theatre. No big deal.
Actually, I thought it was kinda cool – I always suspected that he was intentionally sabotaging the GOP convention. He’s too smart a director, too tuned in to the nuances of theater to have done something THAT DUMB, unintentionally. You know, he was mayor of Carmel and a pretty damned liberal one, at that!
If he ever let them know his true politics (he’s a huge supporter of Marriage Equality, in fact), they would have thrown him out of the party. He once stated, in an interview: “I guess I was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative before it became fashionable.”
He has also supported a number of liberal Democrats in California, both with contributions and personal involvement.
I do truly believe that the “empty chair” scene was a closet parody of the GOP whom, he knew, would be too stupid to “get it”.
You don’t think demonizing gays and lesbians and keeping them from getting married is a losing battle? The tides are changing against such mentality and the Republican party continuing to embrace it will make them less and less electable.
No “demonizing” has been done. That’s just a buzz word used to tamper debate. Also, no one is “keeping them from getting married”, so much as affirming what marriage really is. You can form some type of domestic partnership with all sorts of contracts/benefits if you want, but don’t call it a “marriage”. Whether in the current political climate it’s “a losing battle” or not is irrelevant and so is religion. What matters is whether it’s right or it’s wrong. Having “changing tides” is fine if it’s changing in the right direction.
Accusing a Police Chief of violating the law and threatening to bring legal action because, they claim, she has a Lesbian Agenda? And that’s not demonizing someone who followed the law and released a report the city attorneys instructed her to release in response to a legitimate FOIA request? In what alternative world is that not demonizing?
Making thousands of robocalls in Arkansas warning people that if Trans people get any rights, they will molest all their young innocent daughters in public rest rooms. And doing so while knowing that Trans people have NO history of molesting girls at all, and her own son is the clear and present danger to their daughters. In what alternative world is that not demonizing?
And yes, you’re right, you don’t have to have religion to hate gays, as you’ve proved so well, with your homophobic and irrational argument (if you can call it an argumentt) against same-sex marriage.
First, I haven’t seen where the Duggars themselves claimed that the chief has a “Lesbian Agenda”, but even if they did it is being descriptive of what they think her motivations are. It has nothing to do with “demonizing” a certain group of people.
My statement regarding the “gay marriage” debate was brief and merely in reply to the notion that being opposed to it is akin to trying to “demonize” gays. That’s all it was. More could certainly be said, but it’s not like you care about debating it anyways. Your attempt to discredit me by calling me “homophobic” (do you even know what that means?) and my argument “irrational” just proves you believe this is beyond debate and that anyone with a view opposing yours should be shut up and shut down.
It is ABSOLUTELY demonizing a group of people. They very clearly think her motivations were directed against them to the point where (they think/accuse) she broke the law just to “get” them. To further ascribe that to merely being a lesbian implies that lesbians hate social conservatives and go out of their way to make their lives miserable. Which is ridiculous, because it’s actually completely the other way around– social conservatives are the ones pushing for laws that make life difficult for LGBT people.
I’m a straight Christian, and I can’t think of a single pro-gay law that has made my life harder to lead.
Think harder, then.
Wait, I’m confused aren’t lesbians gay?
The term “gay” on its own as a noun (rather than an adjective) typically refers to gay men, just as the term “lesbian” refers to gay women.
WRONG. Lots of women prefer the word gay to lesbian and refer to themselves as such. You have no right to judge or apply labels to people – individuals are who they SAY they are, not what fits into your narrow little homophobic box.
So you’re saying it’s a real good thing that Republicans twist themselves into knots trying to hide this kind of shit, based on the fact that Democrats don’t.
And btw, I can’t think of a single instance where it helped a Dem to be known as a child molester or for being closely associated with one.
I’m just talking about sex scandals in general. I’m not seeing where Democrats don’t also twist themselves into knots trying to hide this stuff. I do know they it is usually water run quickly under the bridge as though it was expected or no big deal, whereas conservatives are beaten over the head relentlessly with the standard charges of hypocrisy and the like.
I don’t personally like the Duggars, but I do think they have been as honest as anybody would be in similar circumstances.
Oh come now—-Bill Clinton got impeached!
Ummm….no, he wasn’t. There were impeachment hearings based on obstruction of justice, not the affair. Clinton now makes $25 mil year for speeches and pretty much no one mentions one damn word about his illicit sexual activities.
When did Clinton molest children?
Would you please cut out the obfuscation. The point we’re on Is wider than just molesting children.
You want to compare consensual sex to crimes against children. I don’t care if its Democrat or Republican I don’t think anyone who has a history of uncontrollable sexual impulses should be allowed to head the Family Research Council. Republican supporters need to stop making excuses for this family.
I took the original poster as referring to sex scandals in general among “social conservatives” and that’s the only reason I mentioned Bill Clinton, not because I was equating it to child sex crimes.
Josh Duggar was not “head” of the FRC but I still would probably agree for the most part with your point. I don’t think he should be a part of the organization for the same reason. My defense of the Duggars is regarding the conclusions people draw about relative to their circumstances and the broad generalizations of hypocrisy. That’s not making excuses for them. No Republican has made excuses for them nor have the Duggars themselves made any excuses. Making excuses would be explaining it away as not a big deal because of this or that, but no one has said anything about that. Some have said they shouldn’t be beaten over the head relentlessly due to their honesty and forthrightness in sharing the story, but that isn’t making excuses for the actions of the molesters.
Ummm…yes, he was. The U.S. House voted to impeach him, which is similar to a grand jury voting to indict. The U.S. Senate then tried him, and did not convict.
But Clinton played ‘hide the presidential pickle’ with an intern or three…He didn’t molest any kids.
I recently went looking to see how many Christian religious right wingers have similar stories to Josh Duggar’s, and the count was kinda shocking. I have a list here, and I took out any consensual adult relationships (gay people, adulterers) and only included violence against women, and acts against children. The right wing seemingly has a deep seated child molestation issue. I am not saying that child predators aren’t in every community and subculture, but I think that being hyper religious leads to perversion in many cases. The amount of right-to-lifers caught with kiddie pictures in this list is horrifying.
epublican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president
Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing
child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes
involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of
lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting
a 15-year old girl.
RepublicanCounty Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican activist Parker J. pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.
Republican serial killer Ted Bundy was hired by the Republican Party
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
All the people you have listed simply have “Republican” attached to them. That’s essentially meaningless to me. That, in and of itself, means neither “conservative” or “religious”. Not saying that it doesn’t, but you seem to equate them all as one and the same. I’m also not saying that no conservatives or religious individuals have engaged in wrongful sexual behavior. There are many who do, particularly those of prominence like megachurch pastors who were in the business from the beginning for sordid gain and treat the gospel as a product and their people as the consumers. There’s nothing biblical about in anything they do and they are never the men of God they’re portrayed to be. The common man is far closer to the truth. Someone in “religious” circles for sordid gain or those who unbiblically believe in forsaking of all bodily pleasure will more easily end up succumbing to inappropriate sexual behavior. It’s not “religiosity” that leads to it, but false religiosity.
Many of the people I highlighted were religious activists that were staunchly pro-lifers. I invite you to read through the list. Now, I could do a google search for you and find out exactly how many of them are religious zealots, I bet a large percentage of them are, I don’t need to prove to myself how hypocritical they are… chances are if you are a successful republican in the South, you are at least doing lipservice to the fanatics that vote for you,
Edited to add, I never said all religious people are perverts. I said religious fanatics are. And yes, I think being really zealous in your religious life means you are hiding something
I acknowledged that some of them were religious. I have no idea what being pro-life has to do with it. So, if you believe that unborn babies have a right to life, you are a hypocrite on that if you engage in sexually deviant behavior? That makes no sense nor does your implication that it is somehow worse when republicans engage in these sort of things but standard operating procedure (and therefore not hypocritical) when democrats do. All politicians give “lip service” and pander to fanatics.
I think that perhaps these cretins are against abortions because they think about all those potential victims that are being lost…
Actually, the link between right wing religious extremism and the GOP is very strong. If you can find a religious group that democrats have that turns out so reliably for them, produce their name
BLACKS!!!!!
MUSLIMS!!!!
Really??? That’s your conclusion? And you want to talk about others and extremism. You aren’t doing anything other than trying to paint the most extreme picture in your mind. If you actually did percentages on this, you would find it to be very low.
The link between Republicans and Christians specifically is certainly more so than the democrat party. That’s how you would characterize accurately, not your mischaracterized “religious extremism”. People would label me that all the time, but it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just an attempt to discredit those you disagree with. You could argue that democrats turn out “religious extremists” because 99% of Muslims in this country vote democrat, but that’still not really the point. You are basically saying that republicans are hypocrites for engaging in these behaviors because they go against their values (which is true) but it’s okay for democrats to engage in the same behavior because it doesn’t go against their values. That’s the implication at least. Republicans standards are high so they are hypocrites when they don’t live up but democrats standards are so low that they shouldn’t even have to be held accountable.
Extremism is not some nebulous idea that has no definition. Extremism is a form of intolerance for the beliefs of others, it is the rescripting of American history to agree with your ideas about religion, it is the fundamental idea that your religious views should be foisted upon others in secular circumstances. It is the underlying idea that society should be formed in your religious ideas of things.
Abortion is one of the largest pieces of this anti-woman dialogue. Zealots believe that by any means necessary it is incumbent upon them to get into the medical lives of women and bend us to the will of your god… even IUDs and hormonal birth control should be illegalized, bosses should be able to get into my relationship with my medical provider and decide what sort of treatments I can receive because I have a vagina. I see that as completely extreme. So many laws are being passed to limit access, to derail public sex education, to foist religious ideas on to the rest of us. That is only one aspect of the extremism I see in the GOP.
Now, do many of the politicians use these religious extremists (like the Duggars) to push forward their economic agendas? Yes, they do, many politicians see religious people as useful idiots… and so often they are right… you’d vote for anything as long as it was anti woman, anti-gay, anti-minority.
I am not a democrat. You can insult them all day and all night. I just don’t think that it is intellectually honest. Democrats are middle of the road to right of center. The right is just so extreme that they have successfully redefined for themselves what middle of the road is, but young people are on to you. They are less racist, less sexist, less likely to put up with demonizing gay people and immigrants.
Holy cow, you are all over the map now. You have gone completely off the rails of the original point and into something else completely. Everything you said is nothing more than typical liberal clap-trap. I’ve heard it all before. You’re rife with presumptuous misrepresentations. Your definition of extremism sounds nice but it merely fits your agenda. I could just as easily say that non-religious people want to foist their ideas upon others and silence ANY opposition that might be deemed “religious”. You may not like conservatives, but you can’t dismiss their ideas simply because they might be religious. It’s not about whether the ideas and policies conservatives espouse are religious or not, but whether they are right or wrong. You can’t just dismiss it out of hand any more than conservatives can solely dismiss liberals because they hold secular presuppositions. Abortion is either right or it is wrong, it doesn’t matter one iota if those opposed to it are religious or those in favor of it are not. That’s beside the point.
We get way too sidetracked in pinning certain labels upon those with whom we disagree. Saying that those opposed to abortion are “anti-woman” is so ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s right to anything and everything to do with whether you think it’s permissible or not to take the life of an unborn child. That’s all there is to it. Any charges of being against women, restricting freedom, or being a religious extremist are just distractions from the real debate. Same goes for your charges of “anti-gay” and “anti-minority”. They are absurd allegations. You are either being dishonest in attaching them to me and people like me, or just completely ignorant of viewpoints that oppose yours. Are all the women who think the same things I do just self-loathing?
I never said you were a democrat nor did I ever insulting them. I was merely drawing out the implication you were basically making in calling republicans hypocrites. Not only that but for you to think that democrats are mostly moderate to right of center is laughable and it’s even more absurd to think republicans are “so extreme”, which I take to mean that you think they are more conservative. I wish! I’ve been begging the party to produce more conservative candidates because most of what we’ve been getting is establishment types who are unconcerned about the conservative base. I don’t know who you mean by young people (I’m 27) but you need to quit with the racist, sexist, anti-gay nonsense. Try to understand those who you disagree with better. Listening to Pat Robertson and using him as an example of what conservatives believe won’t get you anywhere. Any side can point out extremists on the other side, but you can’t take them as true representatives and bash the other side over the head with them. You have to be willing to have an honest debate. With all due respect, the only thing you have done is try to stick extremist labels on those with whom you disagree.
This entire notion that your beliefs of what is “right” or “wrong” should have legislation attached to them is ludicrous. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like gays getting married? Too freakin’ bad, they are taxpayers the same as you and deserve to form families.
And yes, you went off on a side track about how these republicans aren’t religious hypocrites… very few militant prolifers get that way from a secular point of view. You don’t like the fact that the republican party is full of Rick santorums, Mike Huckabees, and Ted Cruzs… cry me a freakin’ river, that IS the mainstream of your party… I just tells it likes I sees it. Democrats run so far from anyone with even a whiff of sexual indiscretion Since Bill Clinton embarrassed them , which is silly, they aren’t the party of “family values”… there’s no hypocrisy when they cheat on their mates because they aren’t out there wagging their righteous hypocritical finger at everyone else . Like Jim Bob Duggar advocating to slaughter people guilty of incest, yet only slaps a locks on his daughter’s doors when his son has committed that crime MULTIPLE times
So should your beliefs of what is “right” or “wrong” have legislation attached to them?
Your really just missing the point again. I’m saying that these hot button issues you are bringing up have truth and falsehood attached to them and seeking out the truth would be the goal and therefore for what is “right” can be upheld. It has nothing to do with legislating what one belies is “right”. Your statement implies that there is some sort of inalienable right to abortion and that anybody who opposes it is an extremist who doesn’t believe this so-called “right”. All I’m saying is that those who oppose it do so on grounds that there is no right to abortion. If you believe there is, then argue the case but don’t dismiss the whole debate because you believe (wrongly) that pro-life don’t care about laws, rights, or the constitution. Either abortion is permissible (and should therefore not be banned) or it is not (and should then be unlawful). People fall on both sides. Throwing charges of “anti-woman” and other red herrings makes you look like no more than a religious fundamentalist who won’t entertain an opposing viewpoint.
Also, I never said republicans aren’t hypocrites. I said that they are absolutely are and the reason is that they attach themselves to values that they don’t live up to. Democrats who rail against their hypocrisy are merely saying that they themselves don’t hold moral values with regard to sexual deviancy so therefore they can’t be called a hypocrite if they engage in the same behaviors. You seem to acknowledge that point, but then you say that “Democrats run so far from anyone with even a whiff of sexual indiscretion”. I dispute that that’s true in most cases, but let’s say this it is. if so, why would they do that? Why would they need to “run” from someone when they never held values that would get them labeled hypocrites in the first place. They should just be embraced.
It is very simple, don’t like an abortion, don’t have one. Don’t like gay people. don’t be one or have gay people in your personal life. You can’t deprive others of their rights simply because you don’t agree with their version of right and wrong. And if you are going to say that the government has the right to make women carry pregnancies to term because there is a person inside of them, well that means the government has the right to make you house and feed people even if you don’t want them there, even if you can’t afford them, or you don’t have room for them. You cannot force someone to nurture another person with their body and still call that person “free”. It is as simple as that. And if you want to force women to carry pregnancies to term because they let a man put his penis inside of them, then anyone you’ve ever invited into your home has rights to squat there for 9 months. You can debate me until you are blue in the face, but you will never convince me that you have the right to force women to carry pregnancies they do not want anymore than I can force you to have a tapeworm. An unwanted pregnancy is a parasitic relationship.
The laws of this land say I have the right to seek treatment from a qualified physician. That my physician can give me any treatment that they deem is necessary for my overall health. That my course of treatment is private and between me and my doctor, If you don’t like that, tufftitty. Move somewhere that women don’t have rights to control their body. I like my rights, they are worth fighting for.
This isn’t up for discussion to me. I hope if the religious fanatics take over women take up arms and defend themselves against you.
I really shouldn’t because you are beyond sound reasoning but this will be my last time responding because you are making it clear that you aren’t interested in truth or logic. The fact that you think this is not up for debate makes you exactly like a religious fanatic. Liberals love to harp on the fact that religious people are intolerant and should have a more open mind on things. Yet, here you are intolerant of an opposing viewpoint and labeling any opposition as anti-this and anti-that in an effort to demonize rather than debate.In fact, you say this isn’t even up for debate. But yet I’m the religious fanatic and arms need to be taken up against me, despite the fact that I have not made one religious argument for my positions. Not one, yet you insist on dismissing me as a religious extremist.
Saying that if I don’t like abortion then I shouldn’t have one is like saying if I don’t like murder then I should murder anyone. It’s just an incredibly stupid argument and is an attempt to do nothing more than skirt the real issue. Those opposed to abortion are not opposed to it because they just don’t happen to prefer it, but because they believe it’s wrong. You can disagree on that point, but that is the point. We are debating the lawfulness of it, not whether it should be a preference or not. That’s irrelevant, just like your argument about being free to seek out a qualified physician and not being forced to pay for something you don’t want are equally irrelevant. It’s actually pretty despicable for you to say the stuff you said about not being forced to carry to term and I’m shocked you are so honest. I guess as long as the decisions of the mother that led to the pregnancy inconvenience her, she should just have the “right” to do however she pleases. With that logic in play we should all be free to end the life of anyone who is inconveniencing us. After, we shouldn’t be “forced” to have to deal with them, right? Do you not see the stupidity in your logic? And if that wasn’t enough, you then decide to equate the choice to have sex (and therefore willfully create a life) with being forced to house someone for nine months who you invited into your home. Hell yeah, if that was the agreement beforehand! You choose penis and you choose no protection, then you choose the consequences that come with that. But personal responsibility be damned in your world, I guess. I guess we should all have the option of not confronting the consequences of our decisions. If we blow money at the casino, we shouldn’t be “forced” to go without the money we worked so hard for, so let’s go rob a bank. It’s our “choice”, after all. If you don’t like bank robberies, then don’t rob a bank. Are you getting the absurdity of your arguments yet if I apply the same logic elsewhere?
I’m glad you like your rights, but you have no rights where you have no responsibility. Your “rights” need definition. Your whole position is built on the assumption that this about women and controlling their own body. Well, it’s a good thing for you that your mother didn’t believe that when she was carrying you in her womb. Whether explicitly or not, she knew she had a RESPONSIBILITY to carry you to term, because there was a real life growing inside her. Her body was simply the carrier. She had no “right” to cut off that life any more than any other woman has a “right” to kill their child after they’ve been born because they are a financial burden and they shouldn’t be “forced” to have to pay for their well-being.
Same for arguments regarding gays. I never said I don’t like gays or that they should be discriminated against. My argument was regarding whether marriage amongst gay couples is legitimate or not. Either it is or it isn’t, but that’s the discussion. It has nothing to do with rights, because marriage is not a right. I’m sure you disagree and believe that gays should be permitted to marry and that’s fine. But debate that point and quit circling around it and arguing that those who do not agree with the legitimacy of a new definition of marriage are “anti-gay” or hate gays. That’s got nothing to do with it.
Oh well, I’m wasting my time. I forget you said “This isn’t up for discussion with me”. Sad, really sad.
It is always those screaming about the life of little babies and the responsibility for caring for them that don’t care about BORN babies, babies that are actually living outside of their mothers. They don’t care about whether those babies eat, whether those babies have housing, or the economic welfare of the people that raise them. Sex to you is all about punishment.. choose to have sex, have the consequences. Throughout the history of humankind women had little choice in the matter of whom they had sex with, when they had sex… no right to say no. It is that freedom that religious nuts hate the most. They don’t want women to be free.. well, we are now free. We make our choices and we have to live with them. Some of us make the choice to have a baby, some to give it away, others to abort. Women have to live with the consequences no matter what choice we make, but our choice it is. When you get pregnant and you didn’t intend to, whether you chose to have sex or not, none of your options are very good. You pick the best option you think will be the best for everyone… and many of the women who have abortions already have kids that they can’t afford. No one is going to help them. No one is going to aid them, they have no good option, so they pick the one that they feel is best.
All those red states that are trying to take that freedom away also don’t want women to learn how to prevent a pregnancy, they don’t want women to have access to birth control, they don’t want women to even get through their insurance, and if they get pregnant and don’t want to be they put horrible burdens that make it difficult to terminate that pregnancy, which means that the pregnancy continues longer, which means it is harder in every way for the woman who needs those services… and if she opts to stay pregnant they make sure that there isn’t a safety net for her. They give her a year or so of cash aid, and after that she is on her own. They demand that she work to even get any help at all, while she has a wee baby at home. It doesn’t matter if she has a support system, extended family, etc, they don’t give a flying f*** about her or her baby. you people don’t care if that mom and baby starve because to you she’s just a sl*t that got knocked up. You want that woman to grovel to some local church for handouts because she is just a slattern that needs saving in your mind. And it is all about your version of right and wrong. Your version of what is right is absolutely anti-woman, anti-child, anti-human. Your god is a vengeful, evil pile of garbage as far as I am concerned. I measure you by the outcome of your beliefs, and the outcome is so horrid I deem it completely without merit.
It shocks you that I say an unwanted pregnancy is a parasite. That is because you’ve never had to care for a baby on your own without help, maybe more than one baby. You have no clue what life is like for a woman that has to have a baby she is ill prepared for. Her life is often a misery, and the life of the child is just as bad. Quality of life matters. Did you know the crime rate dropped because of abortion? That’s right, less unwanted, neglected babies were born to mothers that didn’t want them. There are less damaged people that grow up to prey on others. That is a good thing.
I would like abortion to be a last resort and rare sort of thing. I’d like women to get comprehensive reproductive education. I’d like women to have access to free birth control. I’d love it if women that choose to have babies they didn’t plan for were helped by giving them a GOOD education/job training, and support… great childcare.. You know, HELP them. No woman should have to opt for an abortion because she can’t feed the babies she has, or herself for that matter. No woman should be forced to leave toddlers to the care of unsavory characters because she has no other choice. No mother should tell her kid to stay in the car while she goes for an interview. I don’t like abortion, but I dislike child poverty, hunger, neglect, even more. I was a single mom (I was married when I got pregnant, but he ended up leaving me with NOTHING). I know what a misery it is to bring up a child in such circumstances, and if I had gotten pregnant while my son was little, I would have gotten an abortion without a hesitation. Why? Because I know what it is to be there. I have walked a mile in those shoes. You haven’t walked across the room, so you need to stfu
You are spot on! You can go back in time and there were some other famous religious fanatics that were not listed, can we say Ted Hagard? Mega religious, mega homophobic evangelical pastor, highly regarded religious leader of a mega powerful church who got busted and outed for doing drugs and having sex with a gay man! You can’t make this stuff up, if only they were all outed before they are able to inflict so much damage predicating hate speeches and unacceptance towards other people and their personal beliefs.
When the Duggar molestation story was new on TV, some of the psychologists talked about psychological ‘splitting’.
This is a little bit of what Wiki pedia had to say when I searched ‘splitting(psychological)’:
“People matching the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder also use splitting as a central defence mechanism. Most often the narcissist does this as an attempt to stabilize their sense of self positivity in order to preserve their self-esteem, by perceiving themselves as purely upright or admirable and others who do not conform to their will or values as purely wicked or contemptible. Given “the narcissist’s perverse sense of entitlement and splitting … [s]he can be equally geared, psychologically and practically, towards the promotion and towards the demise of a certain collectively beneficial project”.[13]”
The people on TV described it as also meaning that the people doing the splitting could do really bad things. But, as long as they attributed the actions to someone else (which is usually called ‘projection’), they could still feel good about themselves.
We see a lot of ‘projection’ from right wing propaganda media and they know exactly how they are manipulating their listener/adherents.
Great information, now it makes more sense for his perceived promotion of a beneficial project like promoting objection and hate towards gays and pro choice supporters all the while knowing that he is worse than these folks because he’s a serial sexual predator and worse he molested and sexually assaulted his own sisters. It doesn’t get more perverted than that, especially since the youngest was only 5 years old, can we say sick Pedophile?
Wow! This is scary and sick , Thanks for taking the time to do this research and making it available. I have always noticed this trend with Republican mega religious or anti choice men, and the louder they preach the worse offenders they are. I’m not saying Democrats are angels but usually their downfall is being self righteous and shooting themselves in the foot when they get caught having an affair while married. Difference being is, it’s consensual sex amongst adults with women, unlike Republican zealots who are usually caught with child pornography, molesting underage boys and girls and whom usually oppose personal freedoms for other people like gay marriage or pro choice while they are closet homosexuals and child molesters, in other words the worst sexual kinky stuff they so staunchly repudiate but which they usually resemble and represent themselves. I wonder why it seems the most self righteous and religious predicators are usually the worst offenders?
At the same time Jim Bob Duggar was running for public office he was dealing with this in his house. Part of his platform was advocating for the death penalty for people that had committed incest, and yet his own son was guilty of that crime
It’s not quite that simple. The question he asked had to with his position on abortion in the cases of rape and incest. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but context is important:
“Q. What is your abortion position, and specifically, where do you stand on rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s health?
A. If a woman is raped, the rapist should be executed instead of the innocent unborn baby. Adoption is an option. Many couples would love to adopt and are waiting for a baby. Abortion has been and always will be the destruction of an innocent child. Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes. The developing infant committed no crime and should be allowed to live. In the unlikely event that the life of both mother and baby would both be lost (for example, a tubal pregnancy) all should be done to save the life of the mother.”
It really is simple, the man is a flaming hypocrite and the enabler of incest. His son is guilty of incest. His son is a pedophilic abuser of 5 year olds. He put his hands in his 5 year old sister’s panties and molested her. Stop defending these despicable people, or you will be seen as one of them.
He said very clearly “Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes.” From your own quote.
Josh wasn’t caught with his pants down and this isn’t a scandal. It’s the criminal, repeated, premeditated molestation of 5 minor girls, including a very young child.
Which democrats were child molesters and got a way with it? How many of them headed the Family Research Council?
Wrong. There’s a huge difference. First, none of the Democratic sex scandals had anything to do with children. Dems can’t even do a good sex scandal. One got in trouble for sending an IM photo of his fully-covered penis, the other one for booking a prostitute. Seems to me that conservative Senator Vitters got a resume enhancement after being caught in the DC Madame’s brothel with a prostitute while dressed in a diaper. Unlike the Dems who have scandals, he didn’t resign and his idiot constituents keep re-electing him. Both dems in recent sex scandals resigned on the spot. Conservatives don’t, they just spread a line of BS and keep going (ala Vitters, ala Mark Sanford).
But most important is that the Duggars did all the disgusting and irresponsible things they did all while screaming that gays are the ones who molest children (when the real risk lurked in their own family) and Josh, the pedophile, worked for the FRC, the top anti-gay hate group (sort of the anti-gay KKK) condemning LGBT Americans, wholesale, while they all touted their holier-than-thou, cleaner-than-clean superiority on TLC.
They’re being excoriated, and quite rightly, not for the tragic scandal in their own home or their callous handling of it, but for their immense and lamentable hypocrisy – all in the name of Jesus. It’s the hypocrisy, not the crime, and they deserve every putdown they get.
Now they’re going after the Lesbian police chief, so they have a convenient scapegoat to blame their own evil on.
It’s disgusting. They are carrying a huge load of “sh*t”, indeed, and it all has to do with their hypocrisy and bigotry.
Vitter didn’t get a resume enhancement from the scandal, he got salvation by admitting his indiscretions which had occurred years prior. He’s just one example, anyways. Your mistakenly believe all Republicans continue without resigning and all democrats resign and go away. That’s laughably untrue and I’m not even going to debate that.
The Duggars are for traditional family and marriage. That’s all there is to it. They have never said anything about a link between homosexuality and pedophilia, so that’s a moot point.
Josh working for the FRC has nothing to with anything. His work there came 10 years after his confession, not during. Not only that, but saying his pubescent molestation disqualifies him from working for a pro-family interest group is saying that someone who is not perfect cannot work for an organization that does not consider itself perfect. You can erroneously paint the FRC as “anti-gay” in an effort to discredit them all you want, but I would think someone like you would laud them for having someone on board with them who has confessed to imperfections. They don’t condemn LGBT Americans wholesale, they condemn the LGBT organizations that lobby for certain interests. Oh no, disagreement, that’s just not allowed, is it?
The whole “hypocrisy” thing is so ridiculous. The only way there is hypocrisy in any of this is if the Duggars themselves ever condemned sexual molestation but then engaged in it themselves. It was one of their over-sexualized teen boys who did and they took what steps they could to eradicate it and deal with the situation. You can disagree with the steps they took, but they did try to deal with it and keep it from happening again. They didn’t just sweep it under the rug and say it was no big deal. That would be hypocrisy. They didn’t try to hide it, they simply didn’t make it a public matter. There is a difference no matter how badly you want to view it from the angle of a “cover up”.
There are so many untruths in the first short 2 paragraphs, I haven’t read the rest…
But, it’s not any better.
Really? So you think all republicans caught in scandals move on in their political careers without consequence and the democrats don’t? Where’s the untruth in that? Can you cite the Duggars espousing a link between homosexuality and pedophilia? I’m not even saying I’m not, but show me where I’m wrong since answering those questions would show me where my “untruths” are.
And/or sane.
And your morals and values are no better, Mr Folks. Seen enough of you to know you better than yourself and to know you better than your wife.
Is Folks hiding child molestation or something equally insidious?
$10 says Nikki popped in.
Lets see, you are impugning the character of someone anonymously and don’t have the balls to say who you are… typical right wing tactic
jim bob exploiting homophobia to pass the buck …. lol you think ?
The so-called ‘Christian Right’ seeks to shift blame and demonize someone else, so that they can diminish the glare of there own transgressions. While very typical of their behavior, I don’t think it is what Jesus would do.
They wouldn’t have created demons if they didn’t have a use for them.
OP, I’ve seen far too many reports that fail to mention that the story was obtained legally by journalists using an Arkansas FOI request — I’d be pleased to see YOUR story include those facts.
Judge Stacey Zimmerman ordered the 2006 offense report destroyed – the police department, under Chief O’Kelly failed to do so violating a court order.
On May 21, 2015 InTouch magazine published a police report detailing sexual abuse in the Duggar household. The publication obtains the report through a FOIA request. Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, police are obligated to release incident reports, but they must redact the names of juveniles and sex assault victims involved in the reports – which law enforcement agencies did in each case, except for one name – Josh Duggar’s. Chief O’Kelly’s police department again violated the law.
The release violtaed Arkansas law and common decency. The offenses occurred when Duggar was 14.
I could really care less about “32 kids and Counting” or Josh Duggar but this smacks of targeted released of privileged information by an elected official.
Get your information straight, since he was not charged with a crime and he was no longer a minor after 18 they were compelled to release the report under the FOIA, and before they did that the city lawyer and other lawyers were consulted resulting in complying with the law or violating it by refusing to release the reports. The city also took the courtesy of notifying the Duggars that the records had been requested and that they were being released, even though they acted like they were blindsided and LIED they had no idea the records were being and could be rekeased
They were compelled to release the report with the names of all minors blocked. He was a minor at the time the report was written. The court ordered the report destroyed and they failed to comply with that order as well.
Since Josh wasn’t charged with a crime and he was no longer a minor they did not have to redact his name. I’m siding with the lawyers on thissince It went through lawyers and departments for verification before it was decided they had comply with the law. You can’t destroy police records, you can seal court documents but police records are a whole different thing. Before this is over we’ll probably find out the judge had no right to order them destroyed. They are currently investigating the judge for possible overreaching and wrongful destruction of documents.
You’re lying again. What the hell is the matter with you? The judge ordered the police report destroyed long AFTER it was released under the FOIA request and published in In Touch and every other Web site in the Western World.
Do your damned homework before you libel anyone else. False accusations are not just horrible, but leave YOU open to a lawsuit for libel.
You need to check your damn facts, and then apologize publicly. You didn’t even use the word “allegedly”, you just smeared someone with no information to back it up. Guess you just hate Lesbians too?
Shame on you. When you’re stuck in a hole, it really is time to stop digging.
It sounds to me like the OP is a fundie in idiot clothing.
One of those people who get their knickers in a twist because of some perceived violation of an amendment right, all the while deliberately turning a blind eye to the real crime.
Actually, he was not a minor the time the police report was written, that is why state law allowed the report to be released.
and the judge of
red red the report to be destroyed After it had been released.
Pl ease get your facts straight.
What if his records were sealed. As they should have been for a minor.
The records were CREATED after Josh was an adult. Therefore, they are NOT juvenile records that can be sealed.
If there had been a court case/trial, the records would have been sealed. But it was just an investigation and those records are not sealed. It is ironic that in their effort to keep this under wraps, actually, in the end, allowed it to legally be released under a Freedom of Information Act. It does not matter if the police chief was a lesbian or not, she was legally bound to release the documents and she did redact the names of the victims.
Could you possibly get any more of the facts wrong?
The worst distortion of reality you wrote was “Judge Stacey Zimmerman ordered the 2006 offense report destroye”
Yes, that’s true, But what you didn’t say was that she ordered the report destroyed only on May 26, 2015, LONG before the police report had been obtained, posted and discussed ad-nauseum.
She locked the gate long after the horses got out. So no, the Police Chief did NOT defy a court order. If you knew that, then you’re a disingenous liar. If you didn’t know that, then you’re just a biased fool who didn’t bother to do even the most basic research before posting your erroneous and libelous comments.
The FOIA request was vetted by city attorneys and the police chief ordered to release it. This is just an excuse to blame the disgusting and irresponsible actions of the Duggars on the nearest convenient Lesbian – which will make their religious acolytes very happy, to pin the whole molestation thing on the scapegoat they’ve been using for at least a decade.
They’re absolutely disgusting, As was your comment. You owe everyone here, and the Police Chief, a sincere apology.
I did in fact, get it wrong, please see my mea culpa. I never gave two flying flips about this story anyway, should have stayed out of it.
Thanks for apologizing. Not many do. So maybe, double thanks! By the way, the publisher of this site is upset by the sex crime cover up, not the sex crime. (Which is a whole new level of creepy.) But what else can one expect by admitted friend of racist-misogynist Todd Kincannon? If this is what passes for character in South Carolina, no wonder the place is crumbling.
You’re wrong. When it was released, Josh Duggar was 18, therefore his name did not need to be redacted.
The Duggars have many officials in their pocket. The ordered destruction of that report was an attempt by Jim Bob Duggar to once and for all sweep this under the rug so that he could continue to profit off of his ‘lily white’ family and not have to face culpability for allowing the abuse to continue and covering it up.
Bringing this whole sick issue to light was a tremendous thing. It’s a strike against the idiotic mentality that ‘boys will be boys’ and that it’s really no big deal since it only involves females being abused.
The whole Gothard cult is a culture of misogyny and abuse.
It’s high time to start revealing this putrid mindset and way of life.
Thanks for apologizing. Not many do. So maybe, double thanks! By the way, the publisher of this site is upset by the sex crime cover up, not the sex crime. (Which is a whole new level of creepy.) But what else can one expect by admitted friend of racist-misogynist Todd Kincannon? If this is what passes for character in South Carolina, no wonder the place is crumbling.
Creepy child-molesting cult.
Creepy child-molesting cult.
Yep. With Hucklebuck as a close friend and enabler.
That is an Arkansas circle of church friends that seems to contain an inordinate number of child perverts of some sort or another.
So true, the church circle is circling the wagons in order to protect each other even if that means orotecting a pedophile, which accirdibg to Jimbo, after speaking with lots of other friends several stated they had gone through the same and worse. What kind of people do they hang out with and what kind of sick Christian cult do they belong to that has the same and worse going on in their families? Someone needs to have Child Services investigate the Duggars and all their sick friends that seem to have this similar problem in common.
You’re absolutely right. I count at least five people close to the Duggars who have been accused or convicted of sex crimes in the last year, alone. Think about it – how many sex offenders do you count among your closest friends?
There is a reason. They belong to a cult whose main mission is to oppress and own women, to have them as the sex and domestic slaves of men, to rip from them any rights or value as thinking human beings. Don’t kid yourself, but male dominance has only one aim – to screw women, and the more and the more often, the merrier.
Two of the top founders and leaders of the cults (Patriarchy/Quiferfull) the Duggars belong to and believe in have been either excommunicated or forced to resign in the last year, both for sexual transgressions. One moved a woman into his home with his wife and children as a domestic and sex slave. She is suing his ass off now for trafficking and kidnapping. The other had to resign when dozens of women who worked for his mission accused him of sexual harrassment or molestation and grooming underage girls to be sex slaves.
That is why there are so many real perverts in their movement, because the whole movement is designed to give men total sexual freedom in the name of Jesus, while keeping the women on a very short leash. Sex abuse is the name of the game. Why do you think the Duggars’ daughters were left to be molested TWO MORE TIMES by their parents after they first found out about Josh, but Josh was protected at the risk of his own parents being charged with a crime? Because Josh counts, the girls don’t. Because Josh learned from his parents, at an early age, what “women are really for” and was acting on what he was taught.
They’re disgusting. I pity the children who will grow up with a myriad of psychological problems and pain.
These people shouldn’t be celebrated on TV. They should be sent to prison.
P.S. I would even feel some sympathy for Josh as a victim of his parents and their cults, but that evaporated when I discovered that Josh was working as a paid hate-monger for the most virulent anti-gay hate group in the U.S., the FRC. He’s been lying through his teeth ever since he got his job, claiming that gays are all child molesters, when the only real child molester in the room was HIM.
Sorry, no sympathy for a raging hypocrite. He’s second-generation scum.
Agree with you 100 percent any sane person would agree with you.
I found it interesting how government attorneys in this matter outright defied statutes and case law by releasing juvenile records. But of course, many prosecuting offices throughout the nation are known for illegally obtaining the same and speaking privately with judges about sealed records in order to sway a convicting or harsher sentence for an adult defendant.
Juvenile police reports involve juveniles. Josh was over 18 when that police report was filed, he was not a juvenile.
Why doesn’t the “lesbian police chief” get a sex change?
Because she wants to be a woman? Because her sexual identity has nothing to do with her gender identity? Because this has nothing to do with the price of tea in China or the release of the Josh Duggar molestation records via the FOIA?
Why don’t you change your username?
I am no fan of the Duggers. I don’t approve of putting freaks on TV and those freaks being the dominate mass media view of Christianity. That applies to the Roberts’ and Duggar clans. Emanuel AME Church welcoming a stranger of a different race to their Wednesday night bible study is more representative of Christianity than what is seen in mass media news and entertainment. The stereotyping of Christians in the media is as bad as black gangsta stereotypes of the seventies.
“…black gangsta stereotypes of the seventies…”
You mean that’s not what we see when there’s a posting about anything about any black on this blog?
And, the stereotyping of Christians like the Duggars and Roberts in the media seems pretty self inflicted.
“seems pretty self inflicted.”
That’s like blaming “Uncle Toms” for racism. The Duggars and Roberts are the Christian equivalents. They are disturbed people exploited by the media. The media seeks out the odd balls. The Duggars may be sincere, but they aren’t representative any more than the “flames” at a gay pride parade are of the homosexual lifestyle.
“You mean that’s not what we see when there’s a posting about anything about any black on this blog?”
Admitting your problem is the first step to recovery.
How about some examples of ‘negative Christian depiction in the media’?
Resolved? I’m not so sure about that because, by all accounts, the girls did not receive actual, professional counseling either in the immediate aftermath of the molestation or in the years since. If you read postings by others who were molested as children or teens, you’ll find that the consequences of molestation can be buried for a time but return to haunt the victims in later years, in their own adult relationships. AND I include Josh as a victim of his parents failure to obtain counseling for him. “Resolved” as in the sense of buried under the rug, yes, by all means.
Illegal Release of Records? The FOIA request was vetted by the lawyers before being released in redacted form. You could argue that the law is an ass, or that the lawyers were wrong, I suppose, but to scapegoat the Chief of Police — for whatever reason — is just nuts. She didn’t have the final say. If you want to blame someone, blame Ma and Pa Duggar, who didn’t report the molestation when Josh was still a minor, which would have made the record/report that of a minor, and which would have meant the record/report would have been kept sealed. By the time Josh’s molestation was reported to law enforcement, he was an ADULT, and its the age at the time of the reporting, not the age at the time of the crime, that matters regarding whether the report is a juvenile record or not. And the redaction of name and age protected the babysitter. It didn’t in this case protect the sisters because they were on a reality TV show and everyone can do the math on the ages. So look in the mirror on that one two, Mr. and Mrs. Duggar.
And there are those that the Duggar have helped, it happened to me, and I still don’t give a damn about their past personal problems. We didn’t ask them to show us how they make kids, so let’s keep private private.
You’ve got to be kidding. The family helped you, so you’re willing to ignore sexual molestation? Consensual intercourse between adults is private; repeated molestation of girls as young as 5 by a 14-15 year old and parents lying to law enforcement is a crime — not a private act.
What? We didn’t ask them to put their entire lives on TV and online, either, but they did. When you deliberately and willingly make your entire personal life public the way they did, and then deliberately and willingly hide a crime, you can’t blame the public for reacting negatively when they find out.
And I’d LOVE to know whom the Duggars “helped.”
Try a whole town in Arkansas and thousands of others worldwide. You know NOTHING about this family and how charitable and generous they are. Go crawl back under your rock. Your ignorance is embarrassing you.
WTF– you’re stalking me all over Disqus now? Cute.
I find it extremely difficult to believe you’re both as big of a David Foster Wallace fan as you claim to be AND a fan of the Duggars. But hey, keep defending CHILD ABUSE if that’s what floats your boat.
The police chief was NOT WRONG to release the records. She was LEGALLY BOUND to release those records when the request was made by InTouch Magazine. If she would have not released those records she would have been committing an illegal act and lose her job.
She knew that Josh was in Washington Lobbying against Gays, she also knew that he was a child molester, she had every right to expose him, so now we know why during the interview Michelle said this was a Lesbian gender, speak now or forever hold your peace Jim Bob.
Please try to get some facts straight. The police chief was not wrong to release the records; the release of the records was not only legal, but required by law. Furthermore, that is fine if you don’t “think” the Duggars did anything illegal, however, your beliefs are not in line with facts or the law. The Duggars did commit crimes: Josh molested 5 minor girls, including his 5-year-old sister. The parents committed crimes by having knowledge of Josh’s molestation and yet allowing him to remain in the home, unsupervised, where he committed more molestations on new victims! Finally, the victims are not reliving this because of a police chief or even media. They are reliving it because the Duggar family – Jim Bob, Michelle, and their adult children – have make the repeated, conscious choices to forego traditional work and jobs in favor of marketing their family on television, in politics, in magazines, and at speaking engagements for a very lucrative income. If this family did not try to capitalize on every possible opportunity for reality TV fame, no one would care about Josh Duggar or what he did to his tiny sister many years ago, and it certainly wouldn’t be in newspapers, magazines and articles (like this one) anywhere.
So the editors of this publication are okay with sex crimes within the family, eh? Think the crime was handled appropriately do you? Good to know. Truly scummy, but good to know.
Wondering if we shouldn’t be calling DSS or the sheriff’s department after reading this.
It was the casual way the crime was treated that screamed a warning, for me.
Didn’t you hear Libertarian Rand Paul say parents ‘owned’ their children a few months ago?
When you ‘own’ something, you can do whatever you want to it.
Oh Lord, thanks for the reminder. Creepy as it is. Also, that the publishers of this publication are cool with how the Duggars didn’t deal with crime, is a whole, ‘nother layer of creepy.
They should be blaming themselves for the molestation and not a lesbian! I don’t think the lesbian molested any of the Duggar girls.
When a 15 year old boy molests a 5 year old girl, that is a crime. Covering it up is a crime. This isn’t two 12 year olds playing doctor. There is no defense of this unless you decide it is okay to defend pedophiles.
police was not wrong in releasing the records. that was already established so you cant say that police was wrong.
It’s amazing how many people enjoy seeing other families struggles and pain . If only someone could sell tickets and maybe throw the Duggar family in a pit with maneatting animals that would eat them alive instead of people having to do it on the internet.
You mean like Jim Bob and TLC did?
“We can’t speak to O’Kelley’s motivations for releasing the records.” Well then, you should have done some more research so you could. According to all the experts who looked at it (and the city attorney who reviewed the police file before it was released), she had no choice, under the state’s open records law. The subject of the investigation was no longer a minor when the files were released (far from it), the victims’ names were redacted, and the record wasn’t sealed by the Courts. If the Duggars hadn’t committed Obstruction of Justice by hiding Josh away from the authorities until the statute of limitations ran out, the file and all proceedings would probably have been sealed under juvenile justice laws.
You’re right about one thing: they did it to themselves. Not to mention, deserved it, for holding themselves out to be “holier than thou”, and doing robocalls in an attempt to thwart gay and transgender rights by threatening people that allowing Trans people to use a public bathroom will cause all their precious young daughters to be molested by those “perverts”, when the only “pervert” who poised an imminent threat to molest those precious young daughters was their own son, and they knew it.
Hypocrisy is its own reward. And that reward will be, hopefully, the loss of all that TV income.
Sooo, you were willing to give them a pass because of the whole ‘private and resolved’ thing? It was only one of those things (private) because Jim Bob worked hard to keep it swept under the rug.
It was far from resolved. Josh received no punishment for preying upon and abusing his sisters and the other girl. I highly doubt any of them had any sort of credible therapy over this.
Keep in mind that these are people who have always fully espoused LGBT discrimination and publicly state that children are in danger from contact with any LGBT person.
Kind of ironic given what Joshie was up to, isn’t it?
The tipping point for you is because they’re trying to blame a lesbian for helping to reveal this? Nothing would suprise me less.
Do you realize that they’re blaming everybody under the sun for this situation (liberals, media, etc) except for the people who are truly at fault, namely themselves?
This was physical abuse perpetrated against children. If you were willing to give them a pass on that I have serious doubts about your intelligence and ethics.
Can you tell me when the exploited homo… ? I never heard them once say we are perfect, always have been, always will be. I cherish the episodes. They give me hope. Especially Michelle. But I am looking to take away some good from the show. If the “housewife” saga is on all four corners, and they are far from housewifes, I am confused why you are judging a family’s show this way. Are you kidding? The public is making them all re live anything that did happen and for how many years after, I know we still don’t k ow the whole story and shouldn’t. That’s not what their show is about. TV is a choice, and negative Nellie s like this post is taking that away from us. I know a little bit about what the girls are and went through and it’s repulsive it’s so public more than the act it’s self. People hate them for making their lives simple and greatful. So now others perhaps feel they are gluttons and want to get ride of who is making them look bad.. you people. Your trying to predict the end of a book from one paragraph. And your dragging the ones who had time to cope, back down again. Live and let live. What’s in your closet that hasn’t been addressed. At least it was addressed!
“Time” to cope? What the daughters and Josh needed was more than time — they needed professional counseling.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I got the dates of the actions wrong and I completely retract everything I said about Josh Duggar, the Duggar family, the “lesbian sheriff” and anything else relating to this story.
My apologies to all and from now on, I’ll go back to ignoring this whole stupid sordid tabloid mess.
I am going crazy about all the attention this is getting. Whether public opinion is correct or not, usually it’s the 12 people we have had a system for a long time that we all participate with, but what the he’ll about lance Armstrong lieing for 7 years, and how many people he harmed, lied to, broken families, and tons of money from. ? Represented our country! That is our business, not something that happened to certain few people that are capable of dealing in their own way? Over half our country uses illegal drugs, start there too if your going into people’s homes now. Start with the president of this blob, mob, oh, I mean blog I guess. The ones with a life will go be productive now.
schizophrenia much?
Public opinion always turns against sanctimonious hypocrites. And the Duggars fit that description.
Amazing how prominent political leaders can have their health and school transcripts hidden from public view…but uneducated fundamentalists are such delicious targets that even their confidential juvenile police records get plastered over front pages internationally…
Not a juvenile record. Josh was an adult when record created.
IS THERE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION BEING EXPOSED IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE DUGGAR FAMILY I DON’T THINK SO. JUVENILE RECORDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPUNGED
That is bull crap they just want to put the blame on other people and take the focus off of themselves!! They Did NOT help anyone!!!
Lesbians hate Christian families, this is the best way to put it.
You feel sorry over the pain the sisters are feeling? But Josh and the parents caused this pain. Josh as the incest molester and the parents for not immediately taking care of the issue. The police chief had every right to release the report. It was legal. The Duggars, lied, tried to cover up and did not in any way obtain the proper professional help for Josh and especially for the abused sisters, one only being five years old. They hid everything for sake of money and fame. Humble and honest they are not.
Cheers for your accountability. It is true they created their own problem. But like many they want to put and lay the blame on someone else.