Connect with us

Lawmaker Who Rehomed Daughter Who Was Later Raped Had Her Exorcised To Remove Demons: Report

Published

on

More troubling news about Arkansas State Rep. Justin Harris and his wife, who reportedly believed in demonic possession.

If you’ve been following the story of Justin Harris, you’ll remember the Arkansas State Rep. adopted two little girls, one 3-years old and one 6-years old. He and his wife Marsha, about 14 months later, “re-homed” the girls with another family. The husband in that family, Eric Cameron Francis, a short time later raped the 6-year old and two other little girls. 

Over the past week Rep. Harris, who also owns a Christian preschool, has been attacking Arkansas’ Dept. of Human Services, which arranged the adoption. He claims that he re-homed the girls because DHS threatened to charge him with child abandonment if he tried to given the girls back to DHS. Harris claims the girls were a danger to his three boys, and the boys were forced to sleep in their parents’ locked bedroom.

The Arkansas Times, which broke the story last week, has been covering – and uncovering – every detail in the case.

Now, the Times reports another stunning detail that might explain why the Harrises were so keen on re-homing the girls. According to most people who knew the girls, they were not dangerous but did need specialized care.

But the Harrises believed the girls needed a different type of care, according to a woman who regularly baby sat for the family.

“Chelsey Goldsborough, who regularly babysat for the Harrises, said Mary was kept isolated from Annie and from the rest of the family,” a new report in the Arkansas Times today states. “She was often confined for hours to her room, where she was monitored by a video camera. The reason: The Harrises believed the girls were possessed by demons and could communicate telepathically, Goldsborough said.”

Harris and his wife once hired specialists to perform an “exorcism” on the two sisters while she waited outside the house with the boys, she said.

Multiple sources who interacted with the family confirmed Goldsborough’s account that the Harrises believed the children were possessed, and another source close to the family said that Marsha Harris spoke openly about the supposed demonic possession.

The Harrises deny those claims. Their attorney, Jennifer Wells, said in a statement: “Exorcisms and telepathy are not part of the Harrises’ religious practice.

“The first night I was over there, I just broke down and cried with this little girl because I just felt so bad for her,” Goldsborough told the Times.

According to Goldsborough, the two girls were kept in separate rooms that were outfitted with locks, alarms and video cameras. They were not allowed to be around each other because of the Harrises’ belief in demonic possession and telepathy, she said.

While Annie would be allowed to roam the house and interact with other family members, Mary was often confined to her room, Goldsborough said.

“We couldn’t ever take [Mary] out. I’d watch her from a camera. I think it’s crazy. They were adopted, so they’re going to want TLC.”

The babysitter, who has since moved on to college, says the Harrises saw demons in the girls, even in a photograph.

Goldsborough said the Harrises showed her “a picture of [Mary] where they’re like, ‘You can see the demon rising from her back,’ and it just looked like a little 6-year-old to me.” [Mary was 4 or 5.] The separate source close to the Harrises reported seeing a video that Marsha Harris said showed a demon interacting with one of the girls. The source said demons were an “obsession” with Marsha Harris.

The Times notes that it has other sources who confirm Marsha Harris said they had the girls exorcised.

“They consider it to be spiritual warfare,” the other source said. “I’m a Christian, and I have these beliefs, but this was completely beyond anything I’ve ever seen or heard about.”

Today’s article is extensive – almost 7000 words – but the revelations in it are stunning.

 

More on Justin Harris:

Lawmaker And Christian School Owner ‘Rehomes’ Adopted 6 Year Old To Man Who Then Rapes Her

GOP Lawmaker Will Face No Punishment For ‘Rehoming’ Adopted 6 Year Old Who Was Later Raped

Lawmaker Who Rehomed Daughter Who Was Later Raped: I ‘Have Suffered A Severe Injustice’

GOP Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Force State To Pay For Religious Pre-School

 

Image: Screenshot via YouTube

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Claims Crime Is a Blue City Problem Despite Red State Reality

Published

6 hours ago

on

August 25, 2025

By

President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to roll out his anti-crime initiatives, including sending the National Guard to U.S. cities facing high rates of crime, but ignores that the majority of the most dangerous cities are in red states.

According to Newsweek, out of the twenty-five most dangerous cities per capita, the vast majority — eighteen — are in red states. Only seven out of the twenty-five are in blue states.

The majority of the top ten most dangerous cities, according to Newsweek, are in red states.

  1. Memphis, TN
  2. Cleveland, OH
  3. Toledo, OH
  4. Little Rock, AR
  5. Peoria, IL
  6. Springfield, IL
  7. Detroit, MI
  8. Akron, OH
  9. Beaumont, TX
  10. Rockford, IL

Newsweek also reported that “the latest report from the FBI found that crime has decreased overall. Violent crime fell 4.5 percent from 2023 to 2024, while property crime dipped 8.1. percent. Hate crimes had dropped 1.5 percent during that same time period.”

READ MORE: ‘They Even Changed the Font’: Fox Host Blames ‘Libs’ for Controversial Cracker Barrel Logo

But on Monday, President Trump shared a different perspective.

“Mr. President,” a reporter asked in the Oval Office, “on the National Guard, you talked a lot about Democratic runs cities and states. Would you also consider sending the National Guard into red states and red cities that are also seeing high crime?”

“Sure,” Trump replied. “But there aren’t that many of them.”

He claimed, “if you look at the top 25 cities that, for crime — just about every one of those cities is run by Democrats.”

Calling Trump’s claims “misleading,” The Guardian adds that “according to a report by Rochester Institute of Technology, which analyzed FBI data from 2024, two of the cities in the list of highest homicide rates have Republican mayors. And out of the 24 cities in that list, six states are led by GOP governors.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Cozying Up to Putin’: VP Scorched for Russia-Promoting Rewrite of World Wars

Continue Reading

News

Newsom Fires Back After Trump Vows DOJ Lawsuit Against New California Maps

Published

8 hours ago

on

August 25, 2025

By

Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is responding after President Donald Trump announced that he will direct the U.S. Department of Justice to sue California over its plan to put new congressional maps before voters, a move state officials say is a response to the president’s directive requiring Texas to redraw its maps to create five additional Republican districts.

In a nearly unprecedented move last month, President Trump told Texas Governor Greg Abbott he wanted new congressional maps drawn in the Lone Star State, to create five new GOP-held seats. The move would help Republicans in their efforts to hold the majority the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterms.

Districts, by constitutional mandate, are redrawn every ten years, based on the official U.S. Census. A mid-decennial redrawing is unusual, although not entirely unprecedented.

READ MORE: ‘They Even Changed the Font’: Fox Host Blames ‘Libs’ for Controversial Cracker Barrel Logo

Governor Newsom had warned that if Texas succeeded, he would move to have his state’s maps redrawn. Texas did, and last week state lawmakers passed legislation that will ask voters this November to approve the redrawn maps.

Asked by a reporter if there is a “federal mechanism” he could use to “fight back” against Governor Newsom’s redistricting, despite having ordered Texas to redistrict, President Trump referred to the California governor as “Gavin Newscum.”

He then replied, “Well, I think I’m going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon and I think we’re going to be very successful in it.”

READ MORE: ‘Unconstitutional’: Trump Under Fire for Pushing Jail Time for Flag Burning

“We’re going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That’s going to happen,” Trump vowed.

Responding to the news of a lawsuit, Governor Newsom wrote on social media: “BRING IT.”

On Thursday, according to CNBC, President Trump praised Texas for its new maps, writing: “The incredible people of Texas will have the opportunity to elect five more Republicans to Congress, thanks to the passage of their much more fair new Map — A BIG WIN for Republicans in Texas, and across the Country!”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Cozying Up to Putin’: VP Scorched for Russia-Promoting Rewrite of World Wars

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Unconstitutional’: Trump Under Fire for Pushing Jail Time for Flag Burning

Published

10 hours ago

on

August 25, 2025

By

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that burning an American flag is protected free speech under the First Amendment, but President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order that he said mandates that flag burners be prosecuted and ordered to spend one year behind bars with no possibility of parole.

Under the Constitution, presidents lack the authority to overrule the Supreme Court or mandate punishments.

The executive order, according to a Trump administration official, directs prosecution in cases that “wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment.”

The order is titled, “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag.”

“The order would not attempt to criminalize burning the American flag,” Axios reported, “but would direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to review cases where the flag has been set ablaze and determine what charges could be brought under existing laws.”

READ MORE: ‘Cozying Up to Putin’: VP Scorched for Russia-Promoting Rewrite of World Wars

It also orders the Attorney General to “prosecute people who ‘desecrate’ the American flag and to detain and remove immigrants who have been accused of such behavior,” according to The Washington Post. And it orders the Attorney General to find a case to challenge the 36-year-old 5-4 Supreme Court precedent.

Last year, a video appeared to show Trump signing an American flag.

The Independent called the executive order “one of biggest challenges to the First Amendment in decades.”

“This is very important,” President Trump declared in an Oval Office event surrounded by top advisors and Cabinet officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“Flag burning, all over the country, they’re burning flags,” Trump claimed. “All over the world, they burn the American flag, and as you know, through a very sad court, I guess there was a five to four decision. They called it freedom of speech, but there’s another reason, which is perhaps much more important.”

“It’s called death, ’cause what happens when you burn a flag is the area goes — it’s crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy. You can do other things, you can burn this piece of paper, you can. And it’s. But when you burn the American flag, it incites riots,” Trump claimed. “At levels that we’ve never seen before, people go crazy. In a way, both ways, there are some that are going crazy for doing it. There are others that are angry, angry about them doing it.”

The President told reporters, “the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing. You get one year in jail. If you burn a flag, you get. And what it does is incite to riot.”

READ MORE: ‘Totally Corrupt’: One Word From VP Triggers Political Firestorm

“You get one year in jail, and it goes on your record,” the President claimed. “And you will see flag burning stopping immediately, just like when I signed the Statue and Monument Act. Ten years in jail, have you hurt any of our beautiful monuments? Everybody left town. They were gone. Never had a problem after that. It’s pretty amazing. We stopped it.”

The President, without offering evidence, also claimed that some flag burners are simply “paid agitators, they’re paid by the radical left to do it. You talk to these people, they don’t even know half of them, don’t even know what they’re doing.”

Critics blasted the President.

“The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that burning an American flag is protected free speech,” wrote attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. “Any prosecution that is the result of this executive order is by definition unconstitutional.”

The Bulwark’s Sonny Bunch pointed to this 2015 quote form the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag,” Scalia said. “But I am not king.”

“This flag burning executive order has it all,” wrote Nico Perrino, executive vice president of The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “Symbolic expression is ‘violence’ against the nation. Heckler’s veto justifications for censorship. Misinterpretation/narrowing of the Brandenburg incitement standard. A revitalization of the ‘fighting words’ doctrine.”

In a statement, FIRE wrote: “President Trump may believe he has the power to revise the First Amendment with the stroke of a pen, but he doesn’t. Flag burning as a form of political protest is protected by the First Amendment. That’s nothing new.”

Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis wrote: “Patently unconstitutional. 18 USC §700 has been void since Tex. v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990) under the 1A. Second, there is no federal authority for an anti-flag-burning statute. The national government does not have a general police power.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Who’s Gonna Tell Him to Leave the White House?’: George Conway’s Dire Warning on Trump

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.