Last week, Ray McBerry sent out a campaign email saying he was “vindicated”.
The problem is, that email alone was full of lies, and so was the affidavit.
Specifically:
Greg Burgess has contacted me and SWGAPolitics.com directly and confirms that he did NOT write this affidavit. (Note the crossed out name.)
There are multiple problems with the content of the statement:
1) In section 2, Greg/Roger claims that he is the supervisor of Chris Gandee. In fact, he is NOT, and Chris’s supervisor is writing his own affidavit to that effect. So we’ve already gotten one outright lie on this thing, and we’re barely four lines into it! In other words if Roger/Greg DID swear under oath that everything in this affidavit was true, as he claims in 3) he is willing to do, he would be committing PERJURY.
2) The problem with people saying they haven’t contributed to Ray McBerry (as Greg/Roger does in 4) ) is that many of his contributions apparently are not tracked – but we’ll be looking at that more within the next couple of days.
3) His fifth statement is actually accurate – the first time in this entire affidavit he has given a completely accurate and verifiable statement. And who can blame Rachel for not wanting a man she sees as a sexual predator to be Governor? Would ANY victim of such trauma ever want to place another innocent in the path of the man she sees as her abuser? It would be like a person knowing in 1928 just how evil Adolf Hitler was and saying “I will work to see that he never becomes Chancellor of Germany.” Would such a person have been incorrect or unjustified?
4) Notice in 6) that he specifically cites the AJC’s article where Jim Galloway interviewed Rachel. There is a reason for this. You see, Chris wasn’t making these claims independently. He was reading some online comments out loud when Greg/Roger apparently overheard him. THAT is the reason Chris “did not make it clear” where he expected the money to come from – he never expected any!
5) Regarding 7), neither Chris and Rachel’s marriage status nor her sexuality have ANY bearing on any of this. They are trying to throw out a red herring to distract “Christians” who LOATHE gays into somehow thinking that Ray’s relationship with Rachel was appropriate because she was an “evil” bisexual and somehow deserved it. Sadly, some of his supporters will take that bait and believe exactly that for exactly that reason – though hopefully they will be smart enough to not admit it publicly. Talk to any person who has worked with rape victims where the rapist was the same sex, and they can tell you horror story after horror story there. Of course, counselors who specialize in sexual trauma in general can also tell you the well known fact that sexual trauma victims tend to have very diverse experiences after such trauma. Note that I am NOT accusing Ray himself of any of this, and the preceding paragraph should not be construed to that effect in any way.
6) On 8), could it be possible that Roger/Greg is upset with Chris for some perceived slight at work and is simply trying to get back at Chris in any way he possibly can?
And a quick note on the email Ray sent out about this: He lied AGAIN. He claims that three individuals across the State are “subjects of libel suits”. Yes, I got one of those letters. Tom did too, and the other person who got one was Linda Pittman, who is currently undergoing chemo treatment. I haven’t read Tom or Linda’s letter, but my letter did NOT say I was the subject of an actual lawsuit. It was a “shut up or else” letter denying my First Amendment rights to speak freely and threatening a lawsuit if I did not immediately take down EVERY reference I’ve ever made to Ray – even those he does not deny – AND never speak of him again in any way.
Obviously, that aint happening.
For the record, I haven’t actually received the letter. I’ve just gotten a notice of a certified letter, and I’m putting off actually signing the card due to lack of interest in what it actually says right now.
This “Vindication” campaign is clearly a dying gasp of a failed campaign. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.
It seems to me that this Burgess character may actually be guilty of slander?
The sooner this slug crawls back under the rock he came from the better off we’ll all be. Although, it seems somebody better keep an eye on him when he’s around teenage girls.
This guy is a joke!
My question is why tom? He hasnt done anything. And why just tom,jeff, and linda? There were 2 other people that interviewed me. Why not them too?
I don’t really understand what you’re claiming here. First you say that Greg Burgess (who I assume _is_ in fact Chris’ supervisor?) has said he didn’t write this, but then you say maybe this was written for some slight at work? And that he overheard Chris reading comments on the AJC blog? Where, at work? But you said this wasn’t written by his work super.
PS: Greg Burgess, to my knowledge, has ZERO connection to Chris Gandee. Roger Burgess is a co-worker of Chris’s – but NOT his supervisor.
The problem with this affidavit is that we really don’t know WHO it came from.
There’s a couple of possible reasons. Mostly, I think it’s because they know that the two guys on SWGAPolitics.com don’t have pockets as deep as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution or Fox 5 in Atlanta.
Jeff, you say you are a Christian, an Independent Baptist to be specific (as am I), but yet you slander Christians. First of all, I think bringing up the Gandee’s sexual habits in an affidavit was unwise, but it is absurd to suggest that the point of doing so is so Christians who are sympathetic to Ray will think RG “deserved” it. Give me a break. That is the kind of thing I would expect from a Christian hating lefty. The point was obviously to call into question her credibility.
Second, I also would expect the assertion that Christians “loath” (in all caps even) gay people to come from some crazed Christian hating lefty, not from someone who claims to be a Christian. As a Christian do you deny that the Bible expressly and repeatedly condemns homosexuality? If you do, perhaps you should inform the pastor of the Independent Baptist church you attend because I am sure he would be shocked to know that.
And I don’t need a libertarian lecture on the role of the state. What the state’s role should be regarding homosexual behavior is a different discussion. The fact is you are slandering your fellow Christians by trotting out left-wing anti-Christian formulations about Christians hating gays.
Slandering christians? I can think of a candidate who is doing that by claiming to be one. How laughable.
Even if these statements were true, doesnt matter. Our personal life has no baring on this. Bein bi or havin a open marriage doesnt make u wanna be a bad person, lie or whatever. This happened when i was 16, what does my sex life or orientation have to do with it?
Gandee, I’m not sure who your comment is directed at, but if it was directed at me, I specifically stated that bringing those allegations up in the affidavit was unwise, and I think it comes off as mean spirited.
My comment was directed at Jeff’s absurd allegation that the point of bringing it up was so that Christian supporters of Ray would think you “deserved” it. Not only is that absurd, it is offensive. I suspect that the vast majority of Ray’s Christian supporters who have been following this don’t believe the allegations, in their entirety, to be true. If they believed them to be true they wouldn’t still be supporting Ray. I would generally agree that your alleged present conduct doesn’t necessarily detract from the credibility of your allegations, but the point of including it was clearly to cast doubt on your credibility whether rightly or wrongly. I suspect Jeff is intelligent enough to know that and was just attempting to cast certain Christians in the worst light possible. I find this behavior extremely puzzling and troubling from someone who claims to be a Christian. I fear that Jeff has allowed his dislike for Ray and his libertarian ideology to cloud his thinking.
And I pray that you will one day find your way back to the Church.
Red:
I’ve personally known some “christians” EXACTLY such as those I describe here.
“Christians” of the type you describe are the reason sexual abuse goes on for so long INSIDE THE CHURCH.
Wasnt directed at no body, if it was i would of directed it to someone.
Jeff, even if you have known Christian like that, it is wrong to generalize to all Christians. The Bible is very explicit about how open sin among the brethren, sexual or otherwise, is to be dealt with in the Church. Someone in the Church who sweeps the open sin of a fellow congregant under the rug is not following the Biblical mandate for how such things are to be handled.
And exactly what type of Christians am I describing?
“How laughable.”
student11, the way Jeff worded his critique, which would make Christopher Hitchens or any other Christ hater proud, is entirely independent of the allegations against Ray.
Red,
I didn’t generalize it to ALL Christians. MOST Christians don’t support men who have had sexual abuse allegations surrounding them for the better part of 15 years.
This is what you wrote: “They are trying to throw out a red herring to distract “Christians” who LOATHE gays into somehow thinking that Ray’s relationship with Rachel was appropriate because she was an “evil” bisexual and somehow deserved it.”
That statement stands on its own, and is outrageous on its face.
I am afraid you are confounding your libertarian ideology with your Christianity. Again, as a Bible-believing Christian, do you disagree that the Bible explicitly and repeatedly condemns homosexual behavior? There is one and only one attitude a Bible-believing Christian should have towards homosexuals. If they are unsaved they need to repent from their sins and accept Christ. If they are saved and have fallen into a state of sin they should renounce their sin and resume their walk with Christ. Whatever you think the state’s attitude toward homosexuality should be (I would argue that historic Christianity and the Bible far from endorse libertarianism, but that is a discussion for another thread), a Bible-believing Christian must condemn homosexual activity. This confounding is also evident in your use of the word theocrat as a slur and your references to Talibaptists that I have seen you use before. Such nonsense should be coming from lefty Christ-haters, not Christians.
Red:
Do you live under the law or under grace? If the law, Christ died for NOTHING! (Galatians 6:16-21)
If you want to be held to the Old Testament standards, realize that you yourself will be held to the Old Testament standards. Remember, those were put in place to prove the NEED for Savior – not to BE the Savior!
Christ himself regularly hung out with the people the Moral Majority of the day cast away. Today, He would be hanging out with those very homosexuals you so clearly despise.
A Torah-believing Jew must condemn homosexual activity, yes. A Bible-believing Christian must preach Christ’s Grace to ALL.
But you’re clearly more interested in the Cult of Christianity than the Christ himself.
Jeff, that is ridiculously bad theology. Of course we live under grace, but Jesus came to die for our sins, not pretend that sin doesn’t exist. The New Testament clearly condemns homosexuality as well. As it condemns adultry and fornication and lying and stealing. You can’t pretend those verses don’t exist.
Straightforward answer please. Do you agree that the New Testament condemns homosexuality?
And I don’t “clearly despise” homosexuals. I think homosexuals are practicing a sin and need to repent and get saved. What I don’t like is people who twist or deny the plain teaching of the Bible in order to accord themselves with modernity and new PC attitudes. But I generally expect this from theological liberals and homosexual apologists, not Independent Baptists.
“A Bible-believing Christian must preach Christ’s Grace to ALL.”
Absolutely. That is why I said the attitude of the Christian toward homosexuals should be that they need to repent and get saved, not that they should go away. But grace from what Jeff? There has to be sin to need grace. But yet you seem to be attempting to define away at least one category of sin.
Red:
Know who Christ himself decried as “ridiculously bad theology”?
The Pharisees.
Their modern day equivalent? Talibaptists/theocrats, aka the Cult of Christianity
The Pharisees were guilty of elevating the laws of men to an equal status as the laws of the Torah. Independent Baptists have sometimes been guilty of a similar offense, elevating man’s standards (dress length, facial hair, etc.) to the level of biblical standards. But the problem there was calling things sin that God has not called sin. It was not saying that what God has clearly called sin is not sin.
Why on earth would a Christian be squeamish about acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin? Afraid it might hurt your libertarian street cred? What is more important to you Jeff, your libertarian street cred or your Christian credibility?
What part of these verses is hard to understand? 1 Cor 6:9-11 NASB (a very reliable translation)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Verse 11 thankfully (because we are all sinners) carries the message of redemption, but it is meaningless if we have nothing to be redeemed from. Homosexuality is clearly listed along side idolatry, swindling etc. as a sinful behavior in need of redemption. Why is there no modern PC effort to exempt swindling from the category of sinful behavior? Why is it only with homosexuality we are supposed to be silent about sin? Jeff, you are empowering the enemies of Christ and the purveyors of license, and I simply do not understand why.
You’re empowering an adulterer, Red. How is that any different from what you accuse me of doing?
Jeff, from the very beginning of all this I haven’t said word one about the truth or falsity of the allegations against Ray. My dog in this hunt has been folks like Doug, Icarus and to a lesser extent you using the allegations against Ray to discredit his agenda of states’ rights. Even if Ray is guilty of some or all that has been alleged, that has nothing to do with the cause of states’ rights. Just as if Karen Handel was guilty of some impropriety it wouldn’t discredit the cause of centrism. The states’ rights agenda rises and falls on its own merits and centrism rises and falls on its own merits.
I think you are less guilty of the above than Doug or Ick, but I find your hostility to nullification and secession utterly baffling and unlibertarian. You were critical of Ray before these charges came out, and I think you have latched onto them particularly hard because of your pre-existing opposition to Ray and his agenda. I think you are like I criticized Jason for being, “taint phobic.” As an already ostracized libertarian (large and small l) you think you can win a place among the “respectable” classes by crusading against other undesirables. This is why you fret about Deal’s alleged birtherism despite the fact that there are hundreds of other more significant things a libertarian might criticize him for. And I think your opposition to Ray and nullification and secession is at least partially motivated by your desire to disassociate yourself from the Southern aspect of it all, lest some PC enforcer call you a racist.
Also, I find your hostility to the “moral agenda” (the subject of this exchange) a product of your libertarian ideological blindness trumping your Christian good sense. Superficially this all seems contradictory. In the case of secession and nullification your libertarian ideology takes second place to your desire to not be associated with undesirables. In the case of crusading against your fellow Christians for wanting to maintain moral order, your libertarianism trumps your Christianity. But it all makes sense in the context of taint phobic libertarianism. You take the easy PC position in both cases, against those icky Southern romantics and against those evil bigoted Christians who want to “force their morality” on everyone.
Wake up Jeff. Like I told Jason, you are a large and small l libertarian. You are already fringe and no amount of crusading against birthers or neo-Confederates or anyone else is going to change that. Learn to love your inner fringe or you will continue to be one conflicted individual.
Red:
States have NO rights. Individuals do. Period. End of discussion.
Also note that I did NOT change my religion because of my politics. My politics changed because of my religion. But that too is the subject of another post. It is NOT humans’ job to “maintain moral order”. It is God’s, and He does it by reaching us one individual at a time.
First let me say i enjoy reading all post on this site.And maybe i am sticking my nose in where it dont belong.But that is my right.In saying that i have 3 words for you Jeff,’Amen-Amen-Amen’You make alot of sense to me.God Bless
Rachel. The vast majority of people support your decision to speak up. The reality (which not a word often used around McBerrians) is that it would be wrong if you didn’t speak up. Since I heard about your story and started googling his name, I learned a whole lot about this candidate that I didn’t know. I heard his States Rights speech once, but he didn’t say anything at all about being a Southern Confederation supporter. He’s a high up in the Southern League. He’s clearly a liar and clearly has no chance of winning so it doesn’t matter I guess, but I’m glad you spoke out. Thank you.
“States have NO rights. Individuals do. Period. End of discussion.”
Way to be completely obtuse, wrong, and arrogant all in the same statement!