Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Celia Rubenstein]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

 

The police would disagree with you. 

[mbutterfly]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

Not to be overly explicit but the police reports state (as best we can tell with the black-outs) he digitally penetrated a sleeping five-year-old child. That alone, to me, means it isn't just family business. It will cease to be the business of the general public when the person who did this is no longer being paid to professionally define family values for Americans. 

[zenme]

In one of their speeches for Family Research Action Council and political stumpng, Anna has claimed that she knows "sexual morality is a choice. ", with the implication being that gays can choose not to act on the "immoral impulse". At one rally, she said she knows change is possible because she knows "people who had immoral temptations that chose redemption". So, yeah, she knew. I think she was talking about Josh and I think Josh's crimes resolved the family's passion for opposing any deviation from traditional sex roles

 

I wasn't there, and I might be taking this out of context, but just reading this I would think she was talking about her views on homosexuality. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by zenme
David Waller reference that skirted the line

[Oldernowiser]

Any clues as to when this "interview" is being filmed? I'm half expecting it to blow up either because it's not the softball version JB is hoping for or because the Fox crew realizes they're just being used as a vehicle for the Duggar Family infomercial.

[starfire]

When someone commits a felony, it is not legal to keep it as a family secret and becomes the public's business.

[CofCinci]

Any clues as to when this "interview" is being filmed? I'm half expecting it to blow up either because it's not the softball version JB is hoping for or because the Fox crew realizes they're just being used as a vehicle for the Duggar Family infomercial.

Tomorrow they'll probably email back and forth with approved questions and work with this coach on how to answer (how Dr. Phil first came to work for Oprah). Filming and editing on Tuesday. Promotion clips/quotes uploaded to the Internet on Wednesday morning.

[Celia Rubenstein]

The laws provide some privacy (against public disclosure) for sexual crimes against - and by - minors. But those are still crimes, not just "family business." 

 

The attitude that such crimes are "family business" has led to some pretty messed up families with long, painful histories of multi-generation abuse.  The Duggars are a perfect example of this kind of thinking in action.  If Jim Bob and Michelle had handled what Josh did appropriately the first time he was caught, there might not have been a second round of occurrences.  

 

I can only hope it ended there.  

Edited May 31, 2015 by Celia Rubenstein

[Julia]

It's hard to believe anyone would work there with a college degree, especially graduate work. (not discounting that, it's just hard to believe anyone with an education would feel that was a legitimate organization to work for.....)

I don't think that's a very safe assumption. There were 150 Liberty Law (Jerry Falwell's school) grads working for the Bush administration, and that's one school enough younger than I am that I could have babysit it. There are a ton of traditional religious universities out there, and any number of cultural conservative commentators who owe their careers to the notice they got as activists at liberal institutions, all the way from William F Buckley to Michelle Malkin.

Disrespect for education may be encouraged in followers, but not so much in leaders. I'm pretty sure in amongst the figureheads and the legacy hires the FRC is full of people who studied law and government, because that's what they do.

[wanderwoman]

really? Why is it the public's business? If this had happened in my family, with a minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.

It's the public's business in the same way Jaycee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart, Amanda Berry, Columbine, and FLDS sexual/physical abuse cases are telling public's business. We have a responsibility to educate the public about the horrible, unspeakable things that happen to children in the hope that it will bring justice to the victims and highlight the dangers of certain eventualities. If this were your family (and I only suggest this because of your making it a personal analogy), and you allowed one child to molest at least five others, then your victimised children would deserve an advocate and you should welcome the involvement of professionals trained in healing families dealing with these things. Parents rarely have the tools or the experience to deal with this burden. They're conflicted or motivated by shame or ignorance. Comparing the Duggars to your family is Apple's and oranges- would you, with full knowledge of the devastation this caused your family and the consequences that would inevitably result from publication of this issue, sign the dotted line to put your family on tv and claim you knew what was best for other people? Because, that's what the Duggars did. If the Duggars had spoke openly or put forth any if their energies and wealth toward victims rights advocating or education, then this would've had a very different outcome and I daresay people might respect tell Duggars and Josh for bravely trusting the Lord with the truth. Instead, the Duggars openly criticized and accused other people of sexual deviance, with no proof, truth, or backing statistics while they had their very own sexual CRIMINAL in their home. Edited May 31, 2015 by wanderwoman

[Mindymoo]

The attitude that such crimes are "family business" has led to some pretty messed up families with long, painful histories of multi-generation abuse.  The Duggars are a perfect example of this kind of thinking in action.  If Jim Bob and Michelle had handled what Josh did appropriately the first time he was caught, there might not have been a second round of occurrences.  

 

I can only hope it ended there.  

That's how it was in my family. My paternal grandfather sexually abused all three of his daughters. They stayed silent about the abuse, not telling their brothers or anyone about it. Then my cousin, who was the daughter of my uncle, was abused by my grandfather for YEARS. It took her seeing an episode of Oprah until she understood what was going on, and even then, it took her telling four people until someone believed her. The fourth person she told? One of the very aunts our grandfather abused. Still, my cousin's abuse was treated as a family matter, and while both of them got counseling after it came to light and he was not to come into contact with children, my uncle and aunt still brought her around him. I'm very lucky my mom was creeped out by them and never let us spend time alone with my dad's parents, because that very easily could have been me. But yeah, silence and treating it as a family member is just harboring abusers and asking for more and more abuse.

[Aethera]

Let's not pile on folks.  The question has been thoroughly answered.

[Granny58]

The police would disagree with you. 

OK, granted I have NO experience with ANY police matters (phew!)   So what is the protocol when dealing with a minor?  Would it be public knowledge (ie. not neighbors talking) if the kid down the street did the same?  

[bencr]

There is an interesting web site -- sasian.org -- which stands for Sibling Abuse Survivors' Information and Advocacy Network. The focus of the site is specifically on issues of sibling abuse. One page of the web site is especially interesting -- Sibling Sexual Abuse -- A Parents Guide.

 

This page discusses such issues as what is sibling sexual abuse vs. normal sexual curiosity, what are the effects of sibling sexual abuse, and what factors contribute to sibling sexual abuse, among other topics. Many of these are things that have been discussed on this board.

 

One section I found especially interesting in light of this discussion of the Duggars is the section entitled, "How can I best prevent sibling abuse in my family?" Here's what they advise:

 

"How can I best prevent sibling sexual abuse in my family?

.  The best way to prevent sibling sexual abuse is to pay attention to your children
.  Set aside a time each day when your children have a chance to tell you about what they’ve done or felt that day. This might be after school or before bed-time.
.  Ensure that children are well looked after by babysitters, whether the sitter is a family member or not. At breakfast you can ask your children specific questions about the previous evening; for example, did they watch their favourite TV program? did they play video games? did they cooperate with the sitter? was the sitter kind? would they like to have the same sitter again?
.  Be willing to talk about sexuality. Informal sex education could include watching educational videos and reading books with your children. Try to find library materials on sex education that are appropriate to the age of your child.
.  Encourage your children’s school to present sexual abuse prevention films and programs. Most of them do, but it doesn’t hurt to ask. The programs usually carry the message, “If someone is making you do something that doesn’t feel good, tell a trusted adult.”
.  Find out where your children are playing, and who they’re playing with. Be especially concerned if they’re playing with children who are focused on sexual games.
.  Teach your children that they own their bodies and everyone should respect that.
.  Monitor television violence. Movies and television programs that link sex and violence carry a dangerous message to children.

Research shows these messages have a strong negative effect on children.
.  Encourage non-sexist attitudes and behaviour. For example: give power, responsibility and privileges equally to male and female siblings; assign household tasks fairly, and discourage sexist jokes and sexist put-downs.
.  Believe them. Children rarely invent stories of sexual abuse to get a brother or sister into trouble."

 

The Duggars' belief system and their focus on ridiculously large families fails the children on many of these dimensions.

Edited May 31, 2015 by bencr

[Morgalisa]

 

This ran in the Northwest Arkansas edition of the statewide paper this morning from a very former colleague.  Nothing about this really surprises me, from both the scuttlebutt at the time or knowing what we know now about the family.

Good article.  What surprised me was the arrogance of Josh when questioned.  He was his usual smug self.  Evidently Josh and JimBob felt they were above the law.  It didn't sound as if Josh was worried at all.  They didn't think this would ever be verified, so why wouldn't Josh take the FRC job. 20/20 is doing an investigative report on the Duggars.  Can't wait for that.

[3 is enough]

 

20/20 is doing an investigative report on the Duggars.  Can't wait for that.

Really?  Where did you hear that?

[zenme]

Good article.  What surprised me was the arrogance of Josh when questioned.  He was his usual smug self.  Evidently Josh and JimBob felt they were above the law.  It didn't sound as if Josh was worried at all.  They didn't think this would ever be verified, so why wouldn't Josh take the FRC job. 20/20 is doing an investigative report on the Duggars.  Can't wait for that.

 

He was his usual smug self, but what also gets me is "You'll have to ask my dad about that."   Some man he is. 

[neural-plasticity]

I don't think that's a very safe assumption. There were 150 Liberty Law (Jerry Falwell's school) grads working for the Bush administration, and that's one school enough younger than I am that I could have babysit it. There are a ton of traditional religious universities out there, and any number of cultural conservative commentators who owe their careers to the notice they got as activists at liberal institutions, all the way from William F Buckley to Michelle Malkin.

Disrespect for education may be encouraged in followers, but not so much in leaders. I'm pretty sure in amongst the figureheads and the legacy hires the FRC is full of people who studied law and government, because that's what they do.

True. I guess what I mean by that is (and I'm a full time graduate student) -- the name alone is misleading. what legitimate research do they do and why would anyone with a PhD/Master's from an accredited program be okay with the assumptions this organizations make. I do acknowledge that people can get degrees and still have their own personal opinions, I just couldn't see anyone from my field (psychology) being okay with having their name attached to them. It's surprising, but definitely not unlikely is what I meant to say, I guess.

[CofCinci]

I don't see anything about a 20/20 report on the Duggars.

[Morgalisa]

 

Really?  Where did you hear that?

I can't remember.  I thought I heard it at the end of a 20/20 show last week.  Hmmm.

[Kcat1971]

Not to be overly explicit but the police reports state (as best we can tell with the black-outs) he digitally penetrated a sleeping five-year-old child. 

 

I've read the police reports several times and I did not come this conclusion.  Can you point to the narrative # that contains this information?  

[Wellfleet]

He was his usual smug self, but what also gets me is "You'll have to ask my dad about that."   Some man he is. 

 

Not to mention "leave and cleave." What a crock...

[MrsMommy]

Definitely it stopped being "family business" when one of the victims wasn't a family member. IMO, I'm not sure serial molestation is ever "family business," if that means you don't involve outside experts and get professional help for the victims and for the molester.

I have to ask, if all the girls was asleep, how would josh have access to a girl that wasn't a family member?

[cmr2014]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

I disagree.

 

If this had been handled properly, there would have been a report to the police and to CPS. The appropriate agencies would have provided counseling to the victims and the abuser, and made a determination when or if Josh could be returned to the home. During this time, the family would, of course, have been free to pray, and to obtain additional counseling and advice from their religious community. All of this would have been sealed, and completely beyond reach of any prying eyes.

 

Instead, this only reached the attention of the police because JB wanted to parade his family in front of the nation on the Oprah show. The Duggars covered up a crime and neglected the physical and emotional health of their daughters (and the emotional health of their son), in order to enhance their public image.

[JoanArc]

Not to mention "leave and cleave." What a crock...

At 18, he wasn't married yet. I doubt any Duggar truly understands that an 18 year old can do whatever they want, and go wherever they want. Jim Bob's iron fist sees to that. But yeah, total beta move.

 

I'm still much more interested in 18yo Josh working for Grandpa Ruark, who then got a huge cash 'gift' in the purchase of his house. Hush money? Did more go down? Who knows, but someone will find out. Inevitable.

[Showthyme]

We can thank the Duggars for reminding us of a very important lesson: what one excuses in someone else, they are also willing to excuse in themselves. I understand that the Duggars are hypocritical when it comes to telling others how to live. For me, it is telling that the state police let this slide for the most part,and then was found to be accused of a similar crime. I always pay attention to people when they are making an excuse or minimizing someone's bad behavior. It tells me that they are capable of giving themselves the same leave way.

 

It is also interesting to me when people are as rigid as the Duggars. They have something to prove or something to hide.

[Granny58]

It's the public's business in the same way Jaycee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart, Amanda Berry, Columbine, and FLDS sexual/physical abuse cases are telling public's business. We have a responsibility to educate the public about the horrible, unspeakable things that happen to children in the hope that it will bring justice to the victims and highlight the dangers of certain eventualities. If this were your family (and I only suggest this because of your making it a personal analogy), and you allowed one child to molest at least five others, then your victimised children would deserve an advocate and you should welcome the involvement of professionals trained in healing families dealing with these things. Parents rarely have the tools or the experience to deal with this burden. They're conflicted or motivated by shame or ignorance. Comparing the Duggars to your family is Apple's and oranges- would you, with full knowledge of the devastation this caused your family and the consequences that would inevitably result from publication of this issue, sign the dotted line to put your family on tv and claim you knew what was best for other people? Because, that's what the Duggars did. If the Duggars had spoke openly or put forth any if their energies and wealth toward victims rights advocating or education, then this would've had a very different outcome and I daresay people might respect tell Duggars and Josh for bravely trusting the Lord with the truth. Instead, the Duggars openly criticized and accused other people of sexual deviance, with no proof, truth, or backing statistics while they had their very own sexual CRIMINAL in their home.

Oh, they handled it horribly.  I would ABSOLUTELY have had all the proper therapies and professionals involved.  and NEVER EVER EVER go on TV.  But I think because he was a minor it would be assumed it would remain private as I would have expected privacy for my son (hypothetical).  It really shows their level of naivete to suppose that this was never going to surface.    

[wanderwoman]

Oh, they handled it horribly. I would ABSOLUTELY have had all the proper therapies and professionals involved. and NEVER EVER EVER go on TV. But I think because he was a minor it would be assumed it would remain private as I would have expected privacy for my son (hypothetical). It really shows their level of naivete to suppose that this was never going to surface.

I think I understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that Josh is owed a modicum of anonymity because he was a minor when he perpetrated the molestation. I am torn on whether or not I agree with you on this. I think we have to acknowledge a couple of things. One, this pretty much WAS handled privately when he was a child. Two, we have to decide whether or not Josh, and the culture he lived in, saw him as a child or an adut. Legally, he was a child's in the eyes if the law. But, minority doesn't mean laws aren't applicable. If the incident had been handled legally, the victims AND JOSH would have been entitled to therapy and protection at no cost to Jim Bob and Michelle. Josh's rights to a fair trial and punishment based on his individual needs would have been handled in a closed courtroom. It's ONLY because Jim Bob and Michelle failed their kids and tried covering it up, and a mandated reporter with a penchant for kiddie pork flubbed up, that this was able to go public ten years later. In their fear and need to maintain a spotless public image, they made this ten times worse.

Minors are dealt with publicly often. The law recognizes their needs are different than an adult offender and usually accommodates those needs. But, what I think people misunderstand, is that the only minors who have the right to absolute anonymity are the victims. Josh was protected in the redacted report because he couldn't be charged due to the statute clock running down. Had his parents alerted appropriate authorities, releasing his name would've been up to the discretion of the court in concordance with state law. Ironically, Jim Bob supported a bill to treat minor over the age of as 13 as adults in certain felonies. He supported laws requiring minor children to obtain parental consent for access to birth control (thereby stripping said minors of their right to privacy) and lobbied for mandatory intervention by authorities in cases where minors fraudulently obtained tobacco or alcohol. So, his record was all about holding minors publicly accountable,...except for HIS mini-me.

But, I think you're a compassionate person for wanting to ask the question.

Edited May 31, 2015 by wanderwoman

[Julia]

True. I guess what I mean by that is (and I'm a full time graduate student) -- the name alone is misleading. what legitimate research do they do and why would anyone with a PhD/Master's from an accredited program be okay with the assumptions this organizations make. I do acknowledge that people can get degrees and still have their own personal opinions, I just couldn't see anyone from my field (psychology) being okay with having their name attached to them. It's surprising, but definitely not unlikely is what I meant to say, I guess.

I think there's probably a certain amount of funding for academic studies with foreordained friendly conclusions going on, but I think it's pretty openly a political advocacy organization at this point (and Josh was put at the head of the lobbying arm, not in any role in the main organization, since that seems to be a source of some confusion).

I just love your screen name, btw. That's one of my favorite things about babies and young children

Edited May 31, 2015 by Julia

[berly57]

I posted much earlier on . . . and I honestly do not know why this is bothering me so much -- well, Ilguess part of it was I was, too, molested @ 9 years of age by my grandfather, but thought I had gotten over it.

 

But what is really, really bothering me right now -- and maybe it is not a valid point -- but the fact that those (and God I want to say some really bad words right now) people who dare call themselves parents, i.e., Jim Bob & Michele -- after knowing what their son had done -- AFTER knowing, still got on tv and said all that shit about you cant do this but we can, i..e., the mini-golf show. They constantly shove sex down their kids throats but at the same time tell them it is wrong -- and especially tell the girls, you are wrong --

 

BUT fuck (I am so sorry for that term but I am just really pissed off no) if it aint cute when Mama Michele was in a bikini mowing the lawn and she  & Jim Bob just kissed and kissed and fucked and fucked and turned out baby after baby after baby after baby and took absolutely no responsibility for those children . . how DARE they make their older daughters take care of their children.

 

I am so sorry if I have offended anyone but it has just all come to a head for me for some reason right now . . . these people dare to pass judgement on others who may be homosexual, transgender, have had abortions, whatever -- WTF do you think you are Michele & Jim-Bob???

 

Right now my thoughts are for all of the children who were brought up by these twisted, sick people who call themselves parents.

[Julia]

I posted much earlier on . . . and I honestly do not know why this is bothering me so much -- well, Ilguess part of it was...

I think maybe people who were fortunate enough to have been raised in an environment where they were allowed appropriate boundaries might not really get why some of this comes as such a gutpunch.

I wish you peace.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Julia

[galax-arena]

how many people had heard about FRC or followed what they were doing before Josh?

A LOT of people had heard about the FRC prior to Josh. They are a very infamous group thanks to James Dobson (who also founded Focus on the Family). 

Edited May 31, 2015 by galax-arena

[Happyfatchick]

It doesn't surprise me at all that his answer was "You'll have to speak to my dad". Of course that was his answer. They beat that into him like a Proverb.

"Did you make you bed?" you'll have to speak to my dad.

"Could you bring me some paper towels?" You'll have to speak to my dad.

"Would you pass the salt?" You'll have to speak to my dad.

"What did you learn today, Josh?" You'll have to speak to my dad.

"Josh will you have this woman to be your bride?" You'll have to speak to my dad.

Even now, at 27 (?) years old, look who's doing the interview. Josh, do you have anything to say? "You'll have to speak to my dad."

[BradandJanet]

Maybe.  In my state the perp , if found guilty, would become a registered sex offender. It happened to the 13 year old in my complex for less than Josh is accused of.   The victims would be protected.

 

I hope your neighbors are doing well. NPR had a piece on this last week: http://www.npr.org/2015/05/28/410251735/for-juvenile-sex-offenders-state-registries-create-lifetime-of-problems

 

I would never protect offenders over victims, but young offenders can pose a difficult problem. I hope everyone can end up on the right end of this situation. 

[autumnh]

I know for sure I will be DVR'ing the interview since we do not watch FOX News..I am pretty sure the interview will be pre-taped, diluted and edited to reach their fan base.....

 

They have ZERO interest in being honest. 

 

Good lord...being honest in their world truly is a sin. Ugh

[Granny58]

I think I understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that Josh is owed a modicum of anonymity because he was a minor when he perpetrated the molestation. I am torn on whether or not I agree with you on this. I think we have to acknowledge a couple of things. One, this pretty much WAS handled privately when he was a child. Two, we have to decide whether or not Josh, and the culture he lived in, saw him as a child or an adut. Legally, he was a child's in the eyes if the law. But, minority doesn't mean laws aren't applicable. If the incident had been handled legally, the victims AND JOSH would have been entitled to therapy and protection at no cost to Jim Bob and Michelle. Josh's rights to a fair trial and punishment based on his individual needs would have been handled in a closed courtroom. It's ONLY because Jim Bob and Michelle failed their kids and tried covering it up, and a mandated reporter with a penchant for kiddie pork flubbed up, that this was able to go public ten years later. In their fear and need to maintain a spotless public image, they made this ten times worse.

Minors are dealt with publicly often. The law recognizes their needs are different than an adult offender and usually accommodates those needs. But, what I think people misunderstand, is that the only minors who have the right to absolute anonymity are the victims. Josh was protected in the redacted report because he couldn't be charged due to the statute clock running down. Had his parents alerted appropriate authorities, releasing his name would've been up to the discretion of the court in concordance with state law. Ironically, Jim Bob supported a bill to treat minor over the age of as 13 as adults in certain felonies. He supported laws requiring minor children to obtain parental consent for access to birth control (thereby stripping said minors of their right to privacy) and lobbied for mandatory intervention by authorities in cases where minors fraudulently obtained tobacco or alcohol. So, his record was all about holding minors publicly accountable,...except for HIS mini-me.

But, I think you're a compassionate person for wanting to ask the question.

Very informative...thank you for the info and the time.  Also, thanks for the compliment :-)

[CofCinci]

In Arkansas homeschool law you can't homeschool with a sex offender in the house. Interesting....

http://www.arkansased.gov/public/userfiles/Learning_Services/Charter%20and%20Home%20School/Home%20School-Division%20of%20Learning%20Services/Home_School_Law_2013.pdf

[autumnh]

Regarding the FOX News/Megyn Kelly interview news:

 

Great. Another interview where Jim Bob approves the questions beforehand and coaches the kids on how to answer. Do you REALLY think that we'll get honest responses from the older girls? Fuck no. Jim Bob controls every word out of their mouths, just like he controls all the money that they were instrumental in helping him earn. TLC even admitted that the popularity and driving force of the show is the older daughters (which YOU KNOW just kills It's-All-About-MEE-chelle). But will they get to air their true feelings? Nope. We'll get Michelle's bug eyes and annoying kewpie doll voice and Jim Blob blathering on about God forgiving their special snowflake, Josh, while his daughters, the REAL victims, get to hold it all in and relive the violation and humiliation AGAIN. Great. This interview will be a whole lot of nothing.

 

The thought of those older girls having to sit there and listen to the excuses that Josh and their parents make up for the violations that they suffered, is disgusting.  FOX News is...well, it's FOX News. Megyn Kelly HAS gone after her interviewees at times, and she does have a law degree and can probably see through the bullshit, but Jim Bob NEVER would have consented to this if FOX didn't promise to maintain a tight leash on Kelly. She won't be able to freelance. And if she did, the girls would NEVER be permitted to say what they really feel.  

 

The LAST three people I want to hear from on this is Josh, Jim Bob and Michelle. And we all know that they'll be doing 80% of the talking.

 

 

 

 

Same think that I always thought about the Gosselin hate sites, as well. Some people take snark to a whole new level. Not saying that Josh doesn't deserve vitriol (even more than Kate ever did), but wow. Anna and her kids DO NOT deserve it.

 

I actually left a Gosselin snarking site (created after TWOP shut down the J&K+8 thread permanently) when the snark turned really personal and creepy. So, I guess this doesn't surprise me, 

 

Plus they will be making $$$$$$ on this report and it will how Joshie poo is absolved, how they took care of it and how jesus himself has forgiven him....I I seriously would put money down that the females who were assaulted are never mentioned......

 

Smarmy, snake oil salesmen...plus you you know Fox is paying them OUT THE ASS for this interview...because well...it is their M.O

[GEML]

James Dobson isn't affiliated with FRC. This is Tony Perkins baby. And Jodh wasn't hired to do research. He's part of the lobbying and fundraising wing specifically titled FRC action. If you look at their page (before he was sent packing) despite his title of Executive Director) he was still the lowest ranking person in that Department.

Again, he was almost certainly there to raise FRC's visibility to candidates by presenting a vibrant and youthful face, reassuring them that "today's religious young families" still care about these issues. But most importantly he was there to reach out, build and maintain ties to the subculture groups that don't have strong voting and/or fundraising ties to the GOP.

[Christina]

Several pages back a link to a FakeJoshDugger Wordpress site was posted. https://fakejoshduggar.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/you-be-the-judge/I think that may have been what was being set forth as a position for the money laundering allegations, but many of those posts seem to have been deleted. I'm ONLY posting this now because money laundering was mentioned again.

 

That post begins with saying the grandmother gave a mortgage to someone for $50k, and posts a deed where SHE purchased land for $46 as proof. Then later, claims that land purchased by the grandmother from paternal grandfather for "well over value" and posts a screen shot from the auditor's office showing it's estimated tax value of $93,100, with a tax stamp purchased for $100k. It has been incredibly common in my area to pay tax at a slightly higher estimate because of the constant re-evaluations due to the oil and gas contracts in our area. The assessor's office can re-audit every 2 years and change the tax. If you overpaid, you get a credit.

 

Unless there is something else, and I can't be bothered to go search for it, that website is full of itself. Whoever it is has made a decision and tried to force facts to support it, but they don't. Jim Bob and Michelle may have given her the money to purchase the property, but that wouldn't be laundering.

[Wellfleet]

At 18, he wasn't married yet. I doubt any Duggar truly understands that an 18 year old can do whatever they want, and go wherever they want. Jim Bob's iron fist sees to that. But yeah, total beta move.

 

I'm still much more interested in 18yo Josh working for Grandpa Ruark, who then got a huge cash 'gift' in the purchase of his house. Hush money? Did more go down? Who knows, but someone will find out. Inevitable.

 

Although I wasn't at all clear - and my apologies - my "leave and cleave" comment was really meant for present-day Josh, whose parents are still fielding problems for him. Instead of Josh and Anna speaking to FoxNews, Boob & Me-chelle are. 

[galax-arena]

James Dobson isn't affiliated with FRC. This is Tony Perkins baby.

Yes, I realize that Tony Perkins' is the face of FRC now. But it was founded by James Dobson along with Focus on the Family. And both groups rose to infamy thanks to Dobson's hatemongering. (Although I don't think he was as crazy as Jerry Falwell was; did Dobson ever go off on tirades about purple Teletubbies being code for the homosexual agenda?) Not sure when Dobson stepped down from the FRC*, but I think his name is still informally associated with it and FotF by a lot of people. Perhaps more so FotF... I don't even know who runs FotF now, I still think of it as Dobson's group. 

 

Anyway, yes, I'm sure that Josh was brought on to raise the group's visibility even more; there's no other reason that an unqualified git like Josh would have been given the job in the first place. But my overall point was that the FRC was nowhere close to some rinky dink group that hardly anyone had ever heard of. It was infamous loooong before Josh came on the scene. And for what it's worth, I never followed politics or the culture wars that closely until a few years ago, and I still knew of FRC and FotF.  

 

* ETA: Wiki tells me that FRC split off from FotF in 1992. Earlier than I thought. But Tony didn't come on to the scene until 2003 and I definitely knew about the FRC before then. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by galax-arena

[Granny58]

I disagree.

 

If this had been handled properly, there would have been a report to the police and to CPS. The appropriate agencies would have provided counseling to the victims and the abuser, and made a determination when or if Josh could be returned to the home. During this time, the family would, of course, have been free to pray, and to obtain additional counseling and advice from their religious community. All of this would have been sealed, and completely beyond reach of any prying eyes.

 

Instead, this only reached the attention of the police because JB wanted to parade his family in front of the nation on the Oprah show. The Duggars covered up a crime and neglected the physical and emotional health of their daughters (and the emotional health of their son), in order to enhance their public image.

Yes, I agree with all the things that should have been done and understand that by being on TV they were just a scandal waiting to happen, but my point is did they actually try to cover something up or just keep a problem private?  I just don't think I would feel the need to tell the whole world about my child's legal problems.   Of course, I would never put myself on television knowing there was that skeleton in the closet.  

[GEML]

If you've been around politics, you probably associate it wit Gary Bauer, who used it as a platform to run for president in 2000.

[ChocolateAddict]

Yes, I agree with all the things that should have been done and understand that by being on TV they were just a scandal waiting to happen, but my point is did they actually try to cover something up or just keep a problem private?  I just don't think I would feel the need to tell the whole world about my child's legal problems.   Of course, I would never put myself on television knowing there was that skeleton in the closet.  

 

For me, the molestation of minors isn't something to be kept "private" in the way that the Duggar's did.  I don't expect them to announce from the rooftops that their son assaulted his own sisters but I do expect that the relevant people outside the family are told. police, child protection and so on. I'm not an expert on American law but my understanding is that the way they dealt with it borders on illegal (feel free to tell me that I am wrong). So I would say that it was certainly a cover-up in that they made sure that the relevant authorities were not told of a serious incident.  

I can see where you are coming from though.  It is a "private" matter, the whole world did not need to know.  However, the relevant authorities did need to know.  And when you promote your family as the model of virtue and engage in *reality TV*, private matters become public.  The Duggar's have been more than happy to show other "private" events such as the Jubilee medical appointments, Josie's seizures, the children's births and so on.  When you sell yourself out to be a reality star, you have to expect that the public/private line will get blurred. 

So basically, while it was a "private" matter (which was dealt with appallingly), the whole family history became free game when they signed up for a weekly show.  

[Mrsjumbo]

It was brought up about how JB probably defines incest as "penile penetration" & therefore Josh did not commit incest. To protect Mechelle's delicate ears he could phrase it as "Josh did not have sexual intercourse" or that "he touched them through their clothes" which implies no penile penetration.

Edited June 1, 2015 by aethera

[Fosca]

True. I guess what I mean by that is (and I'm a full time graduate student) -- the name alone is misleading. what legitimate research do they do and why would anyone with a PhD/Master's from an accredited program be okay with the assumptions this organizations make. I do acknowledge that people can get degrees and still have their own personal opinions, I just couldn't see anyone from my field (psychology) being okay with having their name attached to them. It's surprising, but definitely not unlikely is what I meant to say, I guess.

 

 

As someone with a Ph.D. in psychology, I've definitely known people with graduate degrees from accredited institutions who would have been/would be happy to work for FRC, as their beliefs dovetail nicely with that organization's.  I'm particularly thinking of a current adjunct at my school with a MA in clinical psychology from a good school who can't get through a lecture without mentioning Jesus and who won't teach several topics in psychology because of their connection to things like evolution.  To which I say, grrrrrr.

[Happyfatchick]

Mods are about to "bonk" us, we're OT. I googled James Dobson last night, and his wiki says he is not affiliated with FotF at this time (at all) because of differences with the current leader. Also, according to wiki, he did found FRC. It eventually split off into its own entity. I'd never even heard of FRC until Josh went there, but really it was fairly early on in the FotF years it was founded.

And because I am prone to chase rabbits, I also googled Tony Perkins. [a blond confession: I thought Tony Perkins had very dark har, a skinny face, plastic hair, REALLY big teeth, and did infomercials about getting wealthy. NOT the same guy.]

Returning to a subject that seems like weeks ago... I kept seeing people (national TV personalities and posters alike) saying in Josh's announcement admitting to the allegations that he said "I" 20-something times and only spoke of the victims twice. That was an unfortunate slip up and will come back to haunt him more than once. Even more unfortunate because I don't believe for one second he wrote THAT any more than he wrote his resignation letter to FRC. When he left FRC, someone slid a piece of paper under his hand and said "sign this" and "someone will see you out after you collect your personal items". He didn't "resign" any more than he wrote his press piece. I wonder how many times he stopped to throw up on the home THAT day?

[Aethera]

Folks, we've repeatedly asked that you don't speculate on who the non-family victim is.  There's a mod-note about it pinned at the top of every page of this thread. Please stop doing it. I'm hiding those posts now, and editing where I need to.  

 

And we're not going to "bonk" anyone for discussing FRC - this thread used to include FRC in its title before Josh left it, and it is still the appropriate place to discuss FRC-related items :)

[Churchhoney]

Mods are about to "bonk" us, we're OT. I googled James Dobson last night, and his wiki says he is not affiliated with FotF at this time (at all) because of differences with the current leader. Also, according to wiki, he did found FRC. It eventually split off into its own entity. I'd never even heard of FRC until Josh went there, but really it was fairly early on in the FotF years it was founded.

And because I am prone to chase rabbits, I also googled Tony Perkins. [a blond confession: I thought Tony Perkins had very dark har, a skinny face, plastic hair, REALLY big teeth, and did infomercials about getting wealthy. NOT the same guy.]

Returning to a subject that seems like weeks ago... I kept seeing people (national TV personalities and posters alike) saying in Josh's announcement admitting to the allegations that he said "I" 20-something times and only spoke of the victims twice. That was an unfortunate slip up and will come back to haunt him more than once. Even more unfortunate because I don't believe for one second he wrote THAT any more than he wrote his resignation letter to FRC. When he left FRC, someone slid a piece of paper under his hand and said "sign this" and "someone will see you out after you collect your personal items". He didn't "resign" any more than he wrote his press piece. I wonder how many times he stopped to throw up on the home THAT day?more

 

Dobson was kind of the philosophical father of the FRC. He spearheaded a movement in the late 70s to get conservative Protestants more involved in lobbying in Washington on family-values issues. FRC was the fruit of that. His involvement wasn't day to day but as its chief intellectual architect and probably, at the time, the most influential and well-known spokesperson for its cause.

[Muffyn]

Again, he was almost certainly there to raise FRC's visibility to candidates by presenting a vibrant and youthful face, reassuring them that "today's religious young families" still care about these issues. But most importantly he was there to reach out, build and maintain ties to the subculture groups that don't have strong voting and/or fundraising ties to the GOP.

He certainly presented a youthful potato face.  He's like a walking spud that's been dipped in oil.  Although now I think of him more as pervert potato face.