Texas taxpayers billed for lawmaker’s quack ‘Jesus shot’

Texas taxpayers billed for lawmaker’s quack ‘Jesus shot’

Back in 2014, the Friendly Atheist reported on the activities of a certain Dr John Michael Lonergan, a convicted felon, who, after leaving prison in Ohio where he was serving a sentence involving tax evasion, mail fraud, and healthcare fraud, moved to Oklahoma to start marketing a “miracle” injection – at $300 a prick.

His syringes, according to one delighted patient, Caitlin Dobbs, contain a concoction of steroids and vitamin B made to a recipe that Jesus himself gave to Lonergan 30 years earlier.

Media, reporting the story at the time, dubbed it the “the Jesus shot”, and said many folk in Oklahoma were queuing up to get themselves injected by “Dr Mike”.


When news of the “miracle” cure reached the ears of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, above, he took himself off to Oklahoma to get the controversial but legal medication which Lonergan claims takes away all pain for life. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except that Miller, according to this report, got taxpayers to foot the bill.

Miller admitted that he had received the shot. He refused to divulge details, but conceded:

It’s worked out good.

A review of travel records show that taxpayers picked up a $1,120 tab for flights and a rental car for Miller and an aide to travel to Oklahoma where Miller claims he toured the Oklahoma National Stockyards and met with Oklahoma lawmakers as well as the state’s top agriculture official.

“Never happened,” said the officials who revealed that they only briefly met with Miller for a handshake and a photo-op which Miller’s office posted to Facebook.
Pressed about the meeting and tour, Miller now admits that he requested the meeting with the Oklahoma agriculture official – and then did not show up.

Other Texas lawmakers are disturbed by Miller’s actions. One, Rep Jerry Shoemake (D) said:

He’s saying that was the business purpose of his trip? Really?

Experts point out that billing taxpayers for expenses associated with a private medical issue would be illegal. Explained Buck Wood, a lobbyist who specialises in ethics:

Oh, no question about it. Using it for a medical procedure? I can’t even imagine anybody doing that. But I guess I haven’t seen everything.

This is not the first time that Miller – described as a small government conservative – has been accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayer dollars.

Upon taking office in 2015, Miller hired four friends and campaign aides to new $180,000-a-year jobs without opening the application process to the public.

Additionally, Miller has billed taxpayers for first class air fare, charged the state for cocktails and billed the state for a trip to Fort Worth for a TV interview that he claims was canceled after he arrived.

Asked about billing the trip to Oklahoma, a spokesperson in Miller’s office denied any wrongdoing and said the lawmaker is paying the state back, saying:

Out of an abundance of caution the commissioner is reimbursing the state for the cost of this trip.

18 responses to “Texas taxpayers billed for lawmaker’s quack ‘Jesus shot’”

  1. AgentCormac says:

    $300 a prick. Nuff said.

  2. Vanity Unfair says:

    “Out of an abundance of caution the commissioner is reimbursing the state for the cost of this trip.”

    It seems that his conscience got pricked as well.

  3. L.Long says:

    Idiot texas rePUKEians take idiot miracle cure in idiotic Oklahoma.
    And the only smart thing is they got the sheeple to pay for it!!!

  4. Bobby says:

    good ole usa of a … fucking great country … the land of the free

  5. barriejohn says:

    The young Turks have a very good expose of “Dr Mike” here:


  6. barriejohn says:

    This is hilarious:

    Michael, if you read this…please contact me. I miss you and think about you all the time. I spoke to your sister a few months ago and left my contact information. I once gave you a heater, and you used to eat steaks at my house. You’re the only person who ever bought me a side of beef for Christmas lol. I’m glad you’re married again, and I’d love to meet your new wife.

    Is that what you call “Taking the Mike”?

  7. Cali Ron says:

    Mary must of had a Jesus’ dad juice injection. That must be what “immaculate Conception “means.

  8. barriejohn says:

    Cali Ron: You’re perpetuating a common error. The “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary, not Jesus, as she was conceived “without sin”. This doctrine will, of course, be found nowhere alluded to in the Bible, as it is another Roman Catholic idea, dreamed up in 1854 (apparently, it had quite slipped God’s mind to say anything about it until then, but he does have rather a lot on his plate!).

  9. Laura Roberts says:

    “Upon taking office in 2015, Miller hired four friends and campaign aides to new $180,000-a-year jobs without opening the application process to the public.”

    Nothing new here. About 15 years ago when Republicans took over our state legislature and the governor’s mansion, the new governor hired dozens of cronies to state jobs without any application process. He was caught out (but only just so) when it was revealed that a whole slew of government posts were double-booked — two employees where only one was required. The experienced people were subsequently fired to make room.

  10. CoastalMaineBird says:

    Barriejohn: dreamed up in 1854

    Oh, no. It was only officially canonized in 1854 – it was dreamed up a LONG time before then.

    The whole idea came from a mistranslation of Isaiah 7.14 where “young woman” was erroneously translated into “virgin” in the 3rd century BCE.
    The Hebrew original says:
    ‘Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.’

    Honestly translated, the verse reads:
    ‘Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.’

    Of course it had nothing to do with Jesus – it was pertaining to King Ahaz of Judah, hundreds of years BCE.

    The authors of MATTHEW took exactly one word: harah and changed it from past tense to future tense, and it became Matthew 1:23 –

    ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.’

    Never mind that nobody actually called the kid “emmanuel”, it turned into “prophecy” and a whole industry was born.

  11. CoastalMaineBird says:

    Barriejohn: OK, I get it. Disregard my last message.

    I’ve never even heard the idea that Mary herself was born of a virgin, I always thought that “Immaculate Conception” referred to Jesus his own bad self.

    Learn something new every day.

    Still, it’s all tied up in the idea that “sex” = “sin” and they go to great lengths to disentangle their own ideas.

  12. barriejohn says:

    CoastalMaineBird: I’ve just read your last comment, so I’m editing this! The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the Virgin Birth – it refers to the “fact” that Mary, as the “Mother of God”, is supposed to have been born without “sin” (not of a virgin), so that she would be a fit vessel to bear the divine infant. She is also supposed to have ascended into heaven at death (The Assumption). Search in the Bible for evidence of that, if you will.

    None of those OT “prophecies” referred to events thousands of years hence. All the nonsense about Lucifer referred to a real king (Nebuchadnezzar or Balthazar?), and had nothing to do with Satan whatsoever, but that won’t stand in the way of mythology.

  13. CoastalMaineBird says:

    barriejohn: Yes, I wrote without researching. Bad plan. Like I said, I never heard of the “fact’ that Mary herself was born without sin, and jumped the gun.

    It would be interesting to study all that, if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  14. Cali Ron says:

    barriejohn: Guilty as charged, I was perpetuating a myth that was not the correct myth. I was actually aware of the so called born without sin thing, but I went with the common misconception for humors sake, fuck the pope and his dogma.

    Being raised evangelical I never understood what the “immaculate conception” meant or the whole concept of original sin or the sins of the father. I learned that after marrying because my wife was raised catholic, although she didn’t really know about it either, we had to look it up. I was well versed in the bible, but of course these concepts were not really biblical, like so much of the RCC dogma and made no sense to me (a just born baby has already sinned?). And why should it, it’s all tomorrow’s mythology.

  15. Cali Ron says:

    Laura Roberts: Shocked I am, yes shocked that blatant cronyism could take place in our hollowed institutions of government here in America, bastion of democracy. Most politicians are smart enough to now you have to post the job, take some applications and then hire your friends and family. He was a very sloppy politician, but since there is seldom any real consequences for such abuse of power I guess they just get lazy.

  16. barriejohn says:

    The RCC are past masters at making up dogma – after all, they put “tradition” on a par with Biblical teaching. “Papal Infallibility” was dreamed up in 1859, though they would say that the doctrine already existed, but had not been “defined” before then. It’s funny how these new doctrines (like the miraculous apparitions) always crop up at a time when the church’s fortunes are in decline, and the Pope is looking for ways to reinforce his authority and influence. Praise be to God!

  17. CoastalMaineBird says:

    Papal infallibility is an interesting subject; my favorite case was Pope Stephen VI, who conducted a trial of his predecessor Pope Formosus. Stevie accused Formosus of perjury, impersonating a bishop, and illegally obtaining the papacy. In 897, a trial was conducted, and Stevie cut off three fingers from the right hand of Formosus.

    This was made all the more weird by the fact that Formosus had died the year before the trial.
    They actually exhumed the body and staged a trial !

    Which one(s) were infallible, I wonder…

  18. Adam says:

    What an expensive prick. And I’m not talking about the injection.