…continues with the same remarkable success as it has for weeks as today Stacy Devotes 2414 words to Mr. Rauhauser.

Neal Rauhauser is crazy and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and his boastful arrogance has been his downfall before. So it is again.

This combined with the 477 words late last night, 1165 words yesterday afternoon and 1593 words yesterday morning adds up to a further 5649 devoted to Brett Kimberlin & Co in slightly over 24 hours, not to mention tweets, re-tweets and re-re-tweets of various material.

And that’s just Stacy it doesn’t include the 1743 words on June 11th, 482 words on June 12th and 1041 words I tossed in yesterday. Nor the words that continue to come from Lee Stranaham, Patterico, Dan Collins, Paul Lemmen (who has a long & rather interesting e-mail exchange with Rauhauser prompted by his decision not to back Ali Akbar) and more other bloggers than I can name.

This collected piece of work is continues to reveal the piece of work Kimberlin & Company are and continue to be. Take a look at Stacy McCain’s latest, for those who don’t want to go through 2414 works here is the meat and potatoes.

By now the astute reader understands – and I don’t really have to point this out do I? — that Kimberlin and Rauhauser’s belief in an imaginary conspiracy of their enemies led them into creating an actual conspiracy of their own.

It’s all right there, you see: Presenting himself as an agent of Velvet Revolution, Rauhauser elicited assistance from members of Anonymous in a conspiracy that “put Breitbart & Co. square in their gunsights.” What did Rauhauser mean by that expression? What manner of activity did Anonymous agree to conduct against the target “in their gunsights”? We don’t know.

What we do know is that, once more, Rauhauser’s compulsive bragging has led to the exposure of one of his schemes.

And this is coming out sooner rather than later so to the Swatter I say again State’s evidence NOW!

Update (sort of): Technically this is not a “update” since I’m typing this before the post goes live but as I’m adding this to my scheduled post I’ll label it as such.

Ladd Ehliner noted the echance between Lemmen and Rauhauser and commented on two particular entries, one where Rauhauser asserted Weiner was framed by a congressman trying to extort Jews. Ladd’s reaction to these “bombshells“:

Worst. Detective. Evah. This is almost as bad as Brietbart Unmasked’s amazing discovery that Ace of Spades is actually a woman in disguise, or some such.

He is even more amused with Neal’s take on Kimberlin:

And then there is this, in regards to Brett Kimberlin, the Speedway Bomber:

More on Brett – locked up for bombing, freed early, received a massive false imprisonment settlement, details are sealed. The only evidence it was him was collected under hypnosis – not a valid source of evidence. They wanted it off the books and quickly, he was a convenient target.

No mention that you’re friends with Kimberlin and he’s your client, Neal? False imprisonment settlement with details sealed? In what bizzarro universe does this happen?

I’ve heard that when the Soviet Union fell apart, some writers for Pravda were totally clueless that their beloved communism was such a miserable failure. They wandered the streets, dazed zombies with no more brains to feed upon…

The danger for any propagandist is to fall prey to their own bullshit (don’t get high on your own supply). To do otherwise is to risk becoming both liar and lied-to. Yes, while the devil may indeed sprinkle bits of truth across the meals he prepares for potential victims, the arsenic renders the entire meal ultimately unpalatable.

The question becomes does Rauhauser actually believe this stuff or is he trying to play Paul or create a paper trail of deniability when this eventually gets to a court.

It will be fun to find out and trust me Stacy McCain will.

Update (sort of) 2: The Criminal case against Aaron Walker has been dropped in Maryland, waiting on the disposition of the peace order.

Dying to find out from Rauhauser how the Bavarian Illuminati managed that one.

Cracker: You loved David, you love a man you make love with a man, you have a baby, but babies cost money, there’s never enough money, so you talk about abortion , you go and see Michael, his advice what does Michael say?

Maggie Harvey: Michael says we will always be welcome in his church no matter what I do.

Fr. Michael Harvey: I was trying to make it easier for you.

Maggie Harvey: I didn’t want it made easier, I wanted you to say ‘No’. I’m a good Catholic I believe, I go along to my priest a lifetime of sacrifice and all I ask for is to protect the child in my womb, but he won’t.

Cracker My Brother’s Keeper 1995

This morning I wrote about non-believing ministers or priests leaving their positions in the church as a good thing. There is however a difference between having doubts and actual disbelief.

In the Catholic church for example priests, Bishops and even Popes still go to confession because they are not free from sin. Those confessors are also in a way coaches, helping people through the tough times.

And that takes me to the specific case of Jerry DeWitt who is mentioned in the CNN article. It’s very clear from his own words where his problems began:

As a young fresh-faced minister, DeWitt was first confronted with his disbelief when he “became the person who got the burden of preaching about hell,” he said. “I really loved the people I preached to, I loved them like family. So imagine preaching that if you don’t do this, you are going to burn in hell. That wasn’t easy for me.”

“It wasn’t easy for me”. This isn’t a question of doubt it’s was laziness, unwilling to talk about a harsh reality because of how it made him feel Think about that for a second:

  • Imagine if your doctor was not willing to tell his patients about a disease that could kill them because “he loved the patients” and “it wasn’t easy for him”.
  • Imagine if a parent unwilling to correct their children from doing wrong because “they love their child” and “it wasn’t easy for them”
  • Imagine if your accountant was unwilling to tell you about financial issues because “he loves his client” and “it wasn’t easy for him”.

In fact we see it in Washington today with elected officials unwilling to solve our financial issues because they love the people and “it isn’t easy for them

In other words, he wanted to be liked. It’s difficult to be liked when you are telling unpleasant truths that people might not want to hear, even if Christ himself said they where true.

There is a reason Pride is first on the list of deadly sins.

What we have here isn’t someone who had disbelief, he had discomfort and because apparently he didn’t share his discomfort with someone with more experience who might have counseled him. If he had asked me I would have quoted one of my very first posts:

Some argue that a good God would not allow such a thing, yet they don’t question that a good law (against murder for example) may cause a person to be imprisoned for life or worse. It isn’t bad law its the offenders bad choice that makes him liable to judgment.

Our unwillingness as people to face that fact is not unlike an overweight person avoiding a scale or a person sick unwilling to see a doctor. It is much easier to avoid an unpleasant truth than to confront it and do something about it. To the degree that Satan is active this is by design, denial works in his favor

The Devil is a psychologist and a con man rolled into one and will always steer us toward the easier more comfortable choice. Of course he could have talked to people of more experience, who could have provided some answers, but again the sin of pride, I don’t need anyone else help or opinions I can do it all myself.

After doubts about hell, DeWitt began to research other schools of thought about God and belief. He began to develop other doubts, about certain biblical translations and about healing.

And of course the rest for Mr. DeWitt is history.   He has the rest of his life to decide otherwise, but if he continues on this path the CNN article will make him popular with many in the media, he will appear on TV, he will be lionized, he will never lack for speaking opportunities with crowds of people cheering him while others less apparently and thus not able to fuel his ego will be silently praying for him and if those prayer are not answered affirmatively, if he hears the voices of the crowd above the silent voice whose message he decided was too hard to express he will achieve the fame and respect he desires and will be held up as an example to others for the rest of his life…

…after that he’s on his own. I wish him the best of luck in making that decision.

In the HotAir headlines comes this story from CNN about a “coming out” group for unbelieving ministers/priests

During his speeches, he talks about the process of leaving his preacher job. “If you don’t believe, then you will be like me – you’ll suddenly find yourself where you only have two choices,” DeWitt told a group in Johnson County, Kansas, earlier this year.

If you are being paid as a preacher and you don’t believe the honest thing to do is leave, of course that presupposes you are not there to make trouble or to feather your nest. As Father Z points out it is not uncommon for such folks to reach high position and have to be removed with as the Cardinal said:

“Among the apostles one out of twelve betrayed, and today among the successors of the apostles the average is certainly no better.”

I suspect a lot of businesses would be very happy to have a mere 8.3% failure rate for employees.

“You can either be honest that you don’t believe … or you can pretend that you do,” he said. “Which is what so many people are doing and that is called faith.”
Hey it’s a matter of simple truth in advertising. In Protestant denominations ministers are generally paid by their congregation. To be holding the job as a non-believer is not only fraudulent, it is taking a job that belongs to an actual believer.

After all as Christ himself said

Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

Matthew 5:37

As for Mr. DeWitt’s situation, well that’s a subject for my next post.

Note there is a difference between leaving a position as a minister, a position of teaching and leading and leaving the church outright.