If this is true, Obama’s IRS is even more way the hell out of line than it first appeared

Catholic Prof Who Spoke Against the Dear Leader Says She Was Harrassed by the IRS with Demands to Know Who Was Paying Her

Cuz this is all about National Security and fighting terror–or something.

Nobody cares about Catholic profs, of course. For one thing, they’re Catholic and so obviously have it coming. Who even *knows* what those fetus-obsessed cracker worshippers are doing in their weird secret rituals?

But if Obama manages to provoke the ire of the press with his arrogance and incompetence, then it might be katy-bar-the-door. The MSM might even take an interest in Dr. Hendershott’s plight. They are good at faking dudgeon when it suits them, even if it serves a Catholic prolifer.

"I said nothing slanderous. First, written words that defame are 'libel' not 'slander'*. Second, whether ..."

What Christianism Stands For
"Beautiful. "...at least not in a public address.""

Not coincidentally….
"Screw your slanders."

What Christianism Stands For
"Where did I damn anybody?"

Not coincidentally….

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dan’l Danehy-Oakes

    Before blaming Obama, note that the person who seems to have ordered all this stuff is a GWB appointee. This could be a case of deliberate sabotage of the O. administration.

    • Pete the Greek

      Captain Irrelevant is most impressed with your skills.

    • Scotty

      If that person is a GWB appointee, all it shows is political corruption plays both sides of the aisle. And it’s not because there are two sides of the aisle, but because our federal government is so large, so spread out in a massive bureaucratic maze, and its career stooges are so shamelessly immune to the responsibilities that ought to temper and direct such power, that it doesn’t matter anymore who appointed whom and whether there’s a “D” or an “R” connected to their names.

      And, honestly, there are plenty of Republican career politicians who view Tea Party groups as much a threat to their power as the Democrats. So it really doesn’t surprise me that a Republican appointee is mixed up in this.

    • wlinden

      “It’s Bush’s fault!”

      • Chesire11

        It’s can’t be Bush’s fault – I’ve been told by conservative pundits for almost 35 years that everything, including the financial collapse of ’08 is Jimmy Carter’s fault!

        • Pete the Greek

          The financial collapse (and the coming REAL collapse) is the fault of many people, Carter, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 44 and Obama. All had a hand in bringing it to a head.

          As do we as citizens for allowing it.

          • Pete the Greek

            PS. forgot to include Reagan. He also helped it along.

    • Chesire11

      Sheesh! Doesn’t anybody want to see any evidence before accepting accusations anymore, or have we progressed to the point of simply accepting allegations at face value? Everybody is simply assuming that the woman’s suspicion is accurate.

      • chezami

        As I said, “if” this is true. As it happens, I know somebody who knows the woman in question. She is, according to my friend, not dishonest or unstable. Given the rest of the emerging pattern, it’s not really all that outrageous or unjust to smell a rat here.

        • Chesire11

          I don’t mean to suggest that she is being dishonest, or unstable, but that she is presenting an unproven suspicion based upon her own subjective perspective. That is very shaky ground upon which to draw conclusions, and it is ridiculous for the Blaze to have published a story like this on nothing but the unproven suspicion of a single source.

          • chezami

            Which is why I said, “If this is true”. What’s fun is watching Schaefer whipsaw between “So what if it’s true? Everybody does it!” and “You can’t prove it’s true.” Hilarious to watch the tribalists of the Left settle into the Narrative as they circle the wagons. Me: I don’t know if this particular story is true. But it looks damn fishy given the overall pattern. At least Obama has told the IRS dude to fall on his sword. But that doesn’t yet answer the question of where this pattern originates. We’ll see.

  • The Deuce

    It’s time for another big push against the HHS mandate, imo, before this stuff can blow over. The consequences of Obama’s corrupt, lawless bullying have finally built up enough that they’ve broken through the dam of public consciousness all at once, and this provides an opening to pile on examples that were overlooked in isolation before, and to do some real damage to both his image and his ability to execute those plans of his.

    • Your wish is our command:

      Write your congresscritters to support House Resolution 940

    • Chesire11

      What corruption? What lawless bullying?

      • chezami

        I think it’s more accurately described as lawful bullying. The executive does, after all, have all sorts of outrageous powers he has granted himself. If he can murder and indefinitely detain citizens in the name of Keeping Us Safe, this seems like small beer. But as I say, much will depend on how badly he ticks off the Press.

        • Chesire11

          That’s more reasonable, but still somewhat excessive, I would say.

          The Imperial Presidency has been a problem for quite a while – one consequence of the Cold War – and has only gotten worse with the adoption, and renewal of the ironically named “PATRIOT” Act, and the legal guidelines set down by John Yoo. I am certainly critical of Obama for not foregoing, and rolling back those powers. I think THAT is a very legitimate line of criticism.

          • chezami

            It’s not that he has not foregone those powers. It’s that he has vastly expanded them. As horrible as Bush’s expansion of police state powers was, even he did not claim the power to secret and unilaterally order the murder of anybody on earth. Obama has. Google “Glenn Greenwald”+Obama+assassination This guy makes Bush look like a piker.

            • Chesire11

              Again, a bit of an exaggeration. The targets of the drone strikes are members of terrorist organizations, and are “enemy combatants.” Killing an enemy combatant with a done strike is no different from killing him on a battlefield by sticking a bayonet in his stomach.

              An American citizen who flees the United States, intentionally placing himself outside U.S. jurisdiction for the expressed purpose of escaping the reach of law enforcement, consorts and conspires with known enemies of the United States in order to launch or foment attacks against its people, its allies and its interests occupy the same position as any Confederate soldier that took up arms against the United States. Neither Lincoln, nor Grant, nor the union soldier on the field of battle owed any rebel soldier due process before he was shot, and neither did Anwar al-Awlaki.

              The real moral problems with Obama’s drone war pursuit of Al Qaeda arise from the large number of innocent civilians who have died in drone strikes, and from the violations of national sovereignty involved in launching strikes in foreign countries. It is the damage being done to one of the fundamental pillars of international law that is most damaging in the long term.

              Of course, it is difficult to see how this constitutes an expansion of presidential powers over those asserted by Bush, who authorized a system of “black sites” beyond U.S. judicial review, authorized torture, launched a thoroughly gratuitous invasion and occupation of a foreign country for no clearly defined reason, had the military arrest and detain an American citizen on U.S. soil, engaged in warrantless wiretaps, etc…

              Don’t get me wrong, Obama has failed to repudiate and has embraced much of what Bush did, but he most certainly does not make Bush/Cheney like pikers.

              • Chesire11

                Crap that was long-winded…sorry! I get that way when I’m tired. Feel free to roll your eyes.

              • chezami

                Actually, the targets are funeral goers, weddings, and sometimes rescuers from the last drone strike. Also teenage boys of 16 guilty of being related to somebody we blew up. And the way we know they are enemy combatants is that the Administration declares them to be so after they are dead:


                Sorry, but this is incredibly sinister and it is just a matter of time before Caesar decides that anybody he dislikes is a “National security threat” and “enemy” of the state. No reason that has to be a terrorist. Aren’t all criminals (or suspected criminals,like suspected “terrorists”) enemies of the civil order? Lets deny them due process too. More efficient.

                • Chesire11

                  I absolutely agree that the drone strikes are being carried out with reckless disregard for civilian casualties, I do not, however, share your cynicism that is of a piece with executing political opponents. When you come right down to it, the risk that you express is present every time we allow the president to use military force. How was allowing FDR and Truman to incinerate whole cities to kill some Nazis, members of the Japanese Imperial forces, war industries, or the enemy’s will to fight any less immoral or less dangerous than a drone strike?

                  • Pete the Greek

                    ” How was allowing FDR and Truman to incinerate whole cities to kill some
                    Nazis, members of the Japanese Imperial forces, war industries, or the
                    enemy’s will to fight any less immoral or less dangerous than a drone
                    – You must be new here. I don’t think Mark (or I) disagree on this point.

                    • Chesire11

                      So my point is that the danger that Mark sees in the targeted killing of terrorist targets with drone strikes is intrinsic to any use of military force, and doesn’t represent a new level of risk particular to the Obama administration. (It’s a good reason for Congress not to abdicate their constitutional responsibilities, as they did when they passed the AUMF.)

                      There are real, troubling issues raised by the drone war, but denial of due process and the assassination of political opponents really don;t number among them, IMHO.

        • Chesire11

          BTW, I appreciate your use of the expression “small beer” 🙂

          • chezami

            I live in the Land of the Microbrew.

  • kenofken

    This whole thing is an abomination, but it is not the least bit surprising. We wished for authoritarian government, and we got what we wished for. In 2001, we willingly, eagerly embraced the “emergency powers” doctrine that sustained the Hosni Mubaraks and Vladimir Putins and Assads of the world. In the 20 years before that, we had abandoned the idea of any ethical bottom line in politics or civic engagement for a greater good. If Our Guy did it, it’s good. If theirs did, it’s treason. The last time we had anything like a bipartisan consensus that abuse of power was always wrong and un-American was Watergate, maybe.

    Obama is responsible for his own abuse of power, but his actions are also a symptom of the deeper sickness we allowed to take root. He’s standing on George W.’s shoulders, and the two of them are standing on ours, collectively. We are fools if we think that voting for the Other Guy last year or in 2016 will lead to a different result without a cultural sea change. By that, I mean a broad-based in-the-streets movement of the scale of Vietnam and civil rights protests. A movement that would make business as usual impossible and force the elite to change their fundamental business plan.

    I don’t see that coming. The media is a lap dog, not merely to Obama but to power. The AP is fighting its battle over its secret police violations of press alone. The Right in this country has no credible vision or voice in opposition. They fully embrace limitless executive power. There is a broad consensus in both parties that “our side will use Sauron’s ring for good.” There is no credible third party movement. The Tea Party, though they have legitimate grievance, are still putzes. The gun nuts will not save us. In fact, they will furnish a wonderful pretext for even more sweeping oppression. Worst of all, we the people are interested in nothing beyond our own small worlds and the day’s reality show results.

    So we’ve got exactly two options. One, learn the delicate art of keeping one’s head down. Or two, we put down our guns and stupid partisan loyalties and bone up on the works of Saul Alinsky and Martin Luther King and Solidarity and Chinese and Russian pro-democracy activism, and learn how to take a baton hit and hard prison time. The elite is betting on Option 1, and they didn’t get elite by making stupid bets.

  • Oh, boy. Are we cranking up the phony outrage machine again, Mark? Look, this has been going on longer than either of us has been alive. This is part of the partisan second term game playing machine. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578482823301630836.html

    • chezami

      So you’re just fine with this.

      Nice to see all the tribal wagon circling is not on the Right.

      • That’s not what I said…but, it is nothing new. Do I wish that our leaders were perfect, and adhered to stronger moral values. YES! But, unfortunately, politics isn’t about morality. It is nasty. It is dirty. And, it is practiced by most ALL of them. The outrage machine running 24/7 is like living next to the train tracks. To quote Jake & Ellwood:

        How often does the train go by?

        So often that you won’t even notice it.

        • My question to you, is why do you hold Obama to a higher standard, than any other President that we’ve had?

          • chezami

            Deflect and deny. Good one. They all do it. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s unreasonable to expect somebody who swears to uphold the Constitution to do it. YOU ARE BEING MEAN AND SINGLING OBAMA OUT! I think you should just cut to the racism charge and be done with it.

            • Deflect and deny? Mark, that’s your whole reply! I asked you why do you hold this MAN to a higher standard. He is a man, no matter how much you want to make us believe that anyone who voted for hopim, voted for a saint, or worse yet….a deity! on a side note, I did not blame bush.

              • chezami

                Why do I hold the President of the United States to his oath of office? Seriously?


                • Which specific part of the constitution is he not upholding? Side note….you are deflecting again.

                  • chezami

                    Okey doke. So now you are changing you tack from “All Presidents do it” to “Prove Obama did something wrong”. If you will note the headline, I did not say Obama has done anything. I said his IRS *may* have done something. It’s kind of funny. You launch the pre-emptive “everybody does it’ strike in order to protect Obama. Then it occurs to you that maybe Obama didn’t authorize this. I have no idea if Obama authorized it or not, which is why I didn’t say he did. I do, however, think that even if he did not authorize it, it is a massive failure of his executive duties that it happened on his watch. So you probably better get back to “everybody does it” as your excuse of choice.

                    • Mark….YOU put Obama in the headline. Not me. According to you, Its Obama’s IRS. You absolutely imply by the headline that he DID authorize it! If not authorize an audit of A citizen, authorized a lot of audits. Either way, don’t twist my words. Your headline. Own It.

                    • chezami

                      Correct. That’s because it’s Obama’s IRS. He’s the President. The buck stops with him when it comes to what his employees in the Executive branch do. At the very least, this has been a spectacular failure of management. At the worst, it may be (as you initially feared, judgiing by your pre-emptive “everbody does it”) an actual policy consciously pursued by the Administration with the President’s knowledge and approval. Won’t know unless there’s an investigation.

                    • Chesire11

                      No, I’m afraid that argument just doesn’t hold water.

                      The suggestion that this was a centrally directed conspiracy is frankly silly. There are two politically appointed positions in the IRS, both of which were held by Bush appointees at the time of the events in question. Below them, the rest of the organization is staffed by career civil servants. In order for this to be the product of a conspiracy, you would have to imagine that the President, or actors on his behalf managed to craft a conspiracy that penetrated multiple layers of the organization, convincing career civil servants to risk their careers and pensions for a guy who will be gone in a couple of years, while either compromising or circumventing the republican appointed political leadership of the agency, and all without ever approaching or encountering anybody who refused to go along with the plot, or refused to keep their mouths shut about what was happening.

                      President Obama is smart, persistent and an effective leader, but that’s tinfoil hat territory!

                      Presidents are responsible for policy, and for their political appointees. In order for them to be responsible for the action of every civil servant in the country, they would have to possess perfect knowledge of, and perfect authority over staffing at every level of government, and that is quite simply impossible.

                      What President Obama IS responsible for in the IRS scandal, is his response to it. Thus far, he has clearly denounced the abuses, and has referred the matter to the FBI for investigation, both of which are entirely appropriate to the situation.

            • Chesire11

              There is nothing to deflect or to deny. There is a person who was audited by the IRS. She is claiming that the audit was politically motivated, but offers absolutely NO evidence to support her claim.

              • chezami

                Yet. The story just broke. We’ll see. In the midst of all the other stories, it could be that she is realizing this was part of a pattern she was hitherto ignorant of.

                • Chesire11

                  Yes, but the job of the media is to report facts, confirmed by multiple sources, not suppositions as to what might be true.

                  My father used to be convinced that the Boston Red Sox would never win another World Series because Fenway Park seated too few people, making post-season play there less profitable than at larger stadia. He was able to provide EXACTLY the same amount of evidence in support of his theory as was presented in this article.

                  As a new article, the piece is grossly premature. It does not inform. All it does is to tap into, and magnify suspicions of political abuses without offering any evidence of anything at all.

        • Pete the Greek

          “Do I wish that our leaders were perfect, and adhered to stronger moral
          values. YES! But, unfortunately, politics isn’t about morality. It is
          nasty. It is dirty. And, it is practiced by most ALL of them.”
          – In your statement, substitute the word “war” with “politics” and you have, almost verbatim, the neocons’ excuse for why we shouldn’t prosecute those who engage in torture.

          Two sides of the same coin: Oh, the people in charge are not perfect, therefore we shouldn’t hold them accountable for their acts.

          • Pete, I deal in reality. And, in reality we deal with men and women. And, unfortunately, they are flawed. Yes, they should be held accountable. BUT…in this case, what are we holding them accountable for? THAT is the point! There is NO evidence that Obama needs to be held accountable for an audit of one lone catholic. You can twist my words, but that doesn’t change the lack of facts that go along with this. It’s the 24/7 media over reaction machine….

            • Pete the Greek

              “here is NO evidence that Obama needs to be held accountable for an audit of one lone catholic.”
              – Don’t read the news much do you? It was a LOT more than one person. Secondly, the BS excuse that those in power didn’t know, COULDN’T know, is wearing thin. Going back to Abu Ghraib (sp?), all the commanding officers kept saying *Gasp!* “Well, by golly, we just didn’t know any of this was happening.” Yes, yes they did.

              A division of the IRS doesn’t just go off on its own on any particular political hunt without orders to do so. You claim to deal in ‘reality’ but have very little idea of how government works.

              I never is OBAMA DID IT!! Maybe he did order it. Maybe one of his underlings did. Without a full investigation, which MUST happen, we won’t know.

              What I do know is that it wasn’t just a bunch of people on their own deciding to endanger their jobs, again and again, all on their own. That doesn’t happen in the real world, which you would understand if you actually did deal in reality.

              • Chesire11

                This “story” (really it’s a breathtakingly unprofessional hack job intended to capitalize on the eagerness of Obama-haters to swallow anything that knocks their bogeyman) is about the audit of one person who (gasp!) thinks she was unfairly audited, and (gasp!) blames it on political operatives targeting her for her criticism of the government (all without anything but her paranoia to back it up).

                The whole thing is frankly laughable.

                Also, in large, decentralized bureaucracies…yeah there are centripetal forces which DO result in individuals and groups acting on their own initiatives. Decentralized power results in decentralization of decision-making. That’s what makes running something as large as the government so complicated. Denizens of large private sector organizations in the real world see this in action all of the time.

                • Pete the Greek

                  “is about the audit of one person who (gasp!) thinks she was unfairly audited, and (gasp!) blames it on political operatives”
                  – No, that’s what Mark linked to. I’m speaking of the much larger story of IRS auditing. And man, when even Jon Seweart and Chris Mathews say there should be an investigation, you might as well stop bailing water.

                  “The whole thing is frankly laughable.”
                  – Hey, it might turn out to be. Until there is an investigation, we won’t know that. What I find laughable is your willingness to go to bat to attack the entire idea of an investigation. But that’s par for the course when it comes to fan boys of a particular candidate.

                  • Chesire11

                    Well since that was the story to which Mark linked, that was the story I was criticizing as a non-story.

                    In any case, I agree that there is a genuine scandal that needs to be investigated…that might have something to do with the decision to turn it over to the FBI for investigation. The scandal, however, involves subjecting some applications for tax exempt status to additional scrutiny based upon suspected political sympathies. It has absolutely nothing to do with audits, which are a completely different animal.

                    What I find curious is your willingness to conclude from the fact that I am critical of what appears for all the world to be sharply partisan propaganda masquerading as a news story, that I am either an uncritical admirer of the President, or that I am opposed to investigating the IRS scandal.

                    • Pete the Greek

                      ” to conclude from the fact that I am critical of what appears for all the world to be sharply partisan propaganda masquerading as a news story that I am either an uncritical admirer of the President, or that I am opposed to investigating the IRS scandal”
                      – It was not an unreasonable assumption. I did not call for Obama’s head. I didn’t crow ‘Oh man! This is going to sink king Barry!’ or some similar nonsense, in which case your criticism would be warranted. What i did do was reject as dumb the assertion of another poster that it HAD to be just the act of a couple of individuals all on their own, it just HAD to be… and I wanted a full investigation of it. The fact that, I think, reasonable opinion irked you spoke to me of party loyalty instead of objectivity .

                    • Chesire11

                      Fair enough. There are enough intertwined discussion going on here to account for both of our confusion about the other’s opinions.

                • Pete the Greek

                  “Also, in large, decentralized bureaucracies…yeah there are centripetal
                  forces which DO result in individuals and groups acting on their own
                  – The extent that even the liberal press so far is saying this went is NOT something a random couple of flunkies go do on their own. You need to drop the part loyalty for a moment and try to think objectively.

                  • Chesire11

                    First of all, I am not an Obama loyalist. I AM, however, a critical thinker who has little patience for garbage journalism. Any “news” organization that prints a story presented an unsupported accusation by a single person is a joke.

                    I would respectfully suggest that it is YOU who is allowing his partisanship to cloud his critical thinking skills. You don;t like Obama, so you WANT the story to be true, therefore you accept it on faith because is confirms your bias.

                    Finally the Corporate press (it is neither liberal, nor conservative, it is motivated by the search for easy profits, which oftentimes takes the form of reinforcing, rather than challenging the preconceived notions of their audiences) is asking questions in the hopes that the story goes beyond the actions of a dew low level civil servants.(Pulitzer Prizes aren’t generally awarded for determining there is less to a story than first meets the eye!)

                    • Pete the Greek

                      “however, a critical thinker who has little patience for garbage journalism.”
                      – I can understand not calling for a noose based on one article. I don’t do that either. A critical thinking person would want an investigation, not simply blow the entire the IRS event as a ‘hack job’. The only way to determine if it is a ‘hack job’ or a real case of serious corruption is a full investigation.

                      “so you WANT the story to be true”
                      – It seems you haven’t read any of my actual responses. What I want is for a full investigation of the IRS scandal, not to have it simply blown off as so many seem to want instead.

                    • Chesire11

                      I think we may be in closer agreement than either of us realize. The single-sourced reporting of one person’s suspicions that she was singled out is what I call a hack job.

                      The story about how the IRS subjected the applications for tax exempt status submitted by conservative political groups to additional scrutiny IS a real scandal and DOES demand investigation, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • CP

    So, this woman didn’t understand that being paid as a freelancer makes you a business? The Blaze, which probably pays freelancers, doesn’t understand this either?

    Perhaps they shouldn’t be commenting on tax law nor the IRS.

    It seems like someone at the IRS was doing inappropriate things. This was not one of them.

    • Joey Odendahl

      I think the “business” question was appropriately addressed in the article.

      Bottom line: Did writing a few articles (for little or no profit) make her worthy of a stressful and costly audit? The circumstances are certainly suspicious and at least worth looking into… Especially in light of the many other accusations coming out.

      In any case, IF the intention was to scare her off, it worked…. “Her writings for the Catholic Advocate soon ceased because, Hendershott admits, the IRS audit silenced her.”

  • Chesire11

    Okay,what we have here is a single sourced story that says somebody thinks she was audited unfairly.


    “While she doesn’t have proof that the IRS investigation was political in nature, she has strong suspicions that it was.”

    Well! As long as she has strong suspicions, I guess it must be true!

    There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that there was anything unusual about her audit, the questions that were asked, or the records she was required to provide.

    The reporter doesn’t appear to have even checked with a tax attorney to determine whether this was unusual or commonplace. There was no evidence provided that the audit was politically motivated, nor that it was directed by political appointees in the government. The whole piece is nothing but allegation backed up by…well…nothing.

    I’d call it a shameful excuse for journalism, but it’s not even that, it’s stenography.

  • kirthigdon

    The purpose of a complicated tax code and the IRS is to reward cronies and supporters with loopholes and punish dissidents. This isn’t abuse of power; it’s the intended use of the power. The IRS is one of many 3-letter government agencies which the US did without for most of its existence and could well do without now. Others include the FBI, CIA, DHS, DEA, NSA, TSA and many more.
    Kirt Higdon

    • Chesire11

      That’s a basically anarchist political philosophy. For much of the history of the United States, we were a pre-industrial or industrializing nation focused upon westward expansion and development. Today, we are a post-industrial, high tech economy with global interests to defend, some of which come into conflict with those of other nations and “interest groups.” All of those three letter agencies are very important to the continued viability of the American state.

  • This whole IRS thing is yet another brick in the path to me becoming a Libertarian, or at least libertarianish.

  • Chesire11

    Every year a certain number of people and groups are audited by the IRS.

    A certain percentage of them (probably around 40%) don;t like President Obama or his policies.

    A smaller percentage of that group are outspoken about their dislike.

    100% of that group are about to conclude that they “must” have been targeted for political reprisals by the White House.


    • Joey Odendahl

      And some of them, at least according to whistleblowers, are right. But I have no doubt that you have just laid out the spin that will be used to sweep this whole thing under the rug.

      • Chesire11

        You may have no doubt of that, yet you also have no proof. In America, it is traditional to presume innocence and require proof of guilt, not the other way around. That is not spin, it is justice…and it is sound reasoning.

        You take it on faith that the IRS is being used as a political cudgel to cow and punish the president’s political opponents. I remember a time when Catholics took pride in reserving faith to a very limited number of clearly enumerated doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, the Real Presence, and the Holy Trinity. Apparently we have arrived at a point where we now include partisan politics in that list. Uncritical cynicism of Obama is every bit as foolish as is the unquestioning adoration of some of his supporters.

        • Brian

          It is traditional in America to assume innocence for persons, that much is certain. Last I checked the IRS wasn’t a person, but a government agency. I generally assume that the powers of this world are in service to, well, the Powers of this world.