Brutally Honest

“I haven’t written for them since the audit, because I was so scared”

A Catholic finds the courage to speak of her experience with the IRS in the wake of the news now being revealed as to the IRS' intimidation of those publicizing their opposition to Obama:

On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told TheBlaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.

According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.”

...

Hendershott noted it was particularly surprising that she, alone, was audited. Her husband, who brings in the vast majority of the family’s income, was not included in the IRS’s inquiry — even though the Hendershotts always files jointly.

So when the agent explained that she would need to come alone and in person to discuss her “business” activity in July of 2010, the professor was perplexed.

“[The IRS agent] didn’t even let me decide when it would be good for me … He didn’t want my husband to come,” she said of the meeting, which was held at an IRS office in New Haven, Connecticut.

The process was a grueling one, including many questions that Hendershott felt were political in nature. Numerous records were requested before the in-person meeting, as well as during and after.

“Every question had to do with bank deposits we made. Every single question,” she said. “What is this money? And I didn’t know a lot of it. We had to go to our bank and get deposits back. We had to get records showing where the money came from.”

While asking about the deposits, the agent wanted to know if the monies came from groups and, if so, what the organizations’ politics were.

The mention of groups, Hendershott notes, is particularly interesting, as she had been writing for numerous Catholic outlets and organizations at the time. In addition to Catholic World Report and the Catholic Advocate, she also penned op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. Many of these writings were critical of President Barack Obama and his policies.

And the plot thickens. Among the organizations she targeted in her writings were progressive groups highly supportive of Democratic causes, including: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United, and Catholic Democrats.

...

Her writings for the Catholic Advocate soon ceased because, Hendershott admits, the IRS audit silenced her. If her suspicions are true, this may have been its chilling intention.

“I haven’t written for them since the audit, because I was so scared,” she said (records show her last article for the organization was on July 10, 2010 — the same month the IRS audit unfolded).

So far, she has only shared her story with friends and those close to her, but in light of the recent IRS scandal, she has decided to speak out.

“It was clear they didn’t like me criticizing the people who helped pass Obamacare,” she said of the audit,” later adding, ”The IRS is very frightening.”

In addition to creating stress and fear, Hendershott said that the experience came at a great emotional and financial expense for the family, noting that even after the audit the government sought more information from her.

“It was like they just couldn’t find what they wanted because they wanted more and more and more,” she said.

Read the whole thing.  It's chilling.

And again I remind readers of Obama's most recent statements about tyranny:

Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.

Those that rule us today are radical ideologues and we should not in any way entrust them with governance.  Obama is but a symptom.

Hopefully more and more Americans are becoming aware of what is now known to be fact.

Barack Hussein Obama promised to fundamentally transform this country.  We are just now beginning to see the lengths to which he'll go and has gone to keep that promise.

Carry on.

Left To Die

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll know what this is all about.

Remember this video, remember these lies. Uttered by a shameless and pathetic prevaricator in front of the caskets and the families of those brave souls who this administration LEFT. TO. DIE.

 

Actually, Hillary, it matters very much.

H/T Jawa Report Where there's more you may want to check out.

The plot thickens

We hope.

ABC News has in essence now reported that the Obama administration lied about Benghazi.

It's about time:

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

Who knew what when?

The American people, at least those not distracted by American Idol and Dancing With The Stars, want to know.

Yet another Benghazi victim may turn out to be CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson

The news is wide and seriously damaging to the Obama administration and particularly Hillary Clinton.

There was this from The Guardian about Obama's recent treatment of whistleblowers.

Not really surprising to those who've been paying attention.

Then there's this must see video of Trey Gowdy's promise to the American people.

Mr. Gowdy's gained a new fan.

I doubt seriously I'm the only newbie.

Then there's this testimony from Greg Hicks describing how he was ordered not to talk to Congressional investigators.

In Watergate, when Nixon obfuscated and lied, nobody died.

Then there's the news that a request for Special Ops to come to Benghazi was denied.

It's clear that a travesty has occurred, one that cannot, must not be covered up.

And for those not paying attention, there's this lie that is arguably the first of many told since 9/11/12.

I finish with what I started with in the title of this catch-all post on a very news heavy day.

This from Politico is par for the course:

The Washington Post's Paul Farhi has written a glowing profile of Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy award-winning CBS correspondent who has been the mainstream media's most persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Farhi's piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath: "Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi," Farhi writes.

But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.

The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April.

This cannot be covered up.

This will not be covered up.

People died.

For their sake, and the sake of their loved ones, we need to get to the bottom of it.

Carry on.

No WMDs in Iraq, but at least two in Boston

The disconnect here is unreal:

Federal prosecutors charged badly wounded Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in his hospital bed on Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction, a charge that could result in the death penalty, officials said.

A court spokesman said a magistrate judge was present when Tsarnaev was charged at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, where Tsarnaev was listed in serious condition.

"Although our investigation is ongoing, today's charges bring a successful end to a tragic week for the city of Boston, and for our country," US Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

Tsarnaev, 19, was also charged with malicious destruction of property resulting in death.

Will we see the questions about WMDs today that we did in the wake of the Iraq war? Will we see polls asking Americans if there were/are WMDs in Boston?

Something tells me we won't.

The world is upside down, words no longer have meaning.

It's hard to comprehend the evil, to fathom the callousness

By now, you've likely seen the video.  No, it's not a snuff film.  It's not radical Muslims stoning a woman to death or beheading an infidel.  It's not a gang of bullies beating a victim senseless.  It's none of those things.

It's worse.  It's worse because the evil in those videos are obvious.

The video of Alisa LaPolt Snow, a spokesperson and lobbyist for the Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates in Florida, calmly and confidently suggesting that a baby born alive in a botched abortion could be killed if the mother, her family and the doctor involved decide to do so, is insidiously treacherous.  You see, Ms. Snow considers herself a child and family advocate.  And there are many out there who would agree with her.

Kathy Schiffer lays it all out for us:

On the clip, Florida State Senator Jim Boyd queries Snow about Planned Parenthood’s objection to the bill.  “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question,” said Rep. Boyd, “because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Snow answers unequivocally:  “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Wait, wait—What about current laws which outlaw infanticide?

State Representative Daniel Davis seemed to be thinking about that, as he asked Snow:  “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving?  What do your physicians do at that point for that child that’s struggling for life?”

Lobbyist Snow, seeming a little less confident than she had at first, responded, “I do not have that information.  I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider.  So I do not have that information.”

Representative Jose Oliva needed clarification.   “You stated,” he began, “that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion—that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family.  Is that what you’re saying?”

 “That decision,” Snow repeated, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

And here, Representative Oliva delivers what I think is the best line in the hearing.  He says, “I think at that point, the ‘patient’ would be the child struggling on the table.  Wouldn’t you agree?”

The video follows. Watch it. Watch her demeanor. Then understand what it is you just witnessed.

Unadulterated evil.

Will the Washington Post correct the record on the death of the infant son of BBC journalist Jihad al-Masharawi?

Here's "the story behind the photo" as reported by the Washington Post on November 15th:

The front page photo on Thursday’s Washington Post tells, in a single frame, a very personal story from Wednesday’s Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic journalist who lives in Gaza, carries the body of his 11-month old son, Omar, through al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City.

An Israeli round hit Misharawi’s four-room home in Gaza Wednesday, killing his son, according to BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, who arrived in Gaza earlier Thursday. Misharawi’s sister-in-law was also killed, and his brother wounded. Misharawi told Danahar that, when the round landed, there was no fighting in his residential neighborhood.

“We’re all one team in Gaza,” Danahar told me, saying that Misharawi is a BBC video and photo editor. After spending a “few hours” with his grieving colleague, he wrote on Twitter, ”Questioned asked here is: if Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last month) how did Jihad’s son get killed.”

...

The story that these photos tell, of loss and confusion, may help inform the Palestinian reactions – and, as the photos continue to spread widely on social media, perhaps the reactions from beyond the Palestinian territories – to the violence between Israel and Gaza.

Yes... perhaps this story, released today, will do just that:

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has released a report that says Palestinians, rather than Israelis, killed the infant son of BBC journalist Jihad al-Masharawi on November 14. 

When the boy was killed during Operation Pillar of Defense in November, the media and various monitoring groups piled on Israel. Photographs of the father holding the deceased infant were shown around the world.

...

U.N. watchdog group Human Rights Watch, which attempted to keep a running tally of all the civilian deaths Israel and Hamas had caused during Pillar of Defense, reported that Israel had killed Mishrawi's "11-month old" son the day after the infant died.

BBC journalists used tweets to imply Israel's guilt in the infant's death the day the child was killed.

But now, the U.N. says the infant was killed by a rocket fired at Israelis "by Palestinians that missed its mark." The infant boy and his mother were both killed by the Palestinians. 

Please dear reader, don't hold your breath thinking the media will correct the record on this.

I'd be surprised if any of them even carry the U.N. correction at all.

"Betrayed is a good word"

What follows is quite revealing, made all the more revealing in that ABC News, normally not much more than an echo chamber for this administration, is reporting it:

Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

...

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

...

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

Read the whole thing.

If this isn't an indication of how deep America's problems are, problems brought to us by a progressive ideology focused more on political correctness and conservative leadership lacking the courage to confront the idiocy, then I don't know what other measurement there might be to plumb the depths.

It all sickens me.

Obama vs. Lincoln, the reality

By guest blogger Locutisprime

It looks to me (and to a lot of other people) as if there is an overwhelming desire to correlate and transpose the images of Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Not just in some idealized romanticized physical fashion, but rather in the truest sense of comparison of ideologies and philosophies.  It also looks to me as if there is a desired intent to draw parallels and similarities between the two men, as if by some cosmic design, Barack Obama has in fact become the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

None of these comparisons are by chance and none are intended as simple parodies of life. There is a direct intent that correlates to a propagandized mission to cause these comparisons and the belief by the American people that the two men are one in the same. It was one thing for casual comparisons to be made between the significance of America's first black president and the Lincoln presidency, but it is something entirely different when forces in media and entertainment put forth and make the repeated assertions of comparison that the two men are literally identical in philosophy and ideology, separated only by time. 

It is not by chance that there is presently an academy award nominated film about Abraham Lincoln in theaters. No more than it is a coincidence that Barack Obama intends to be sworn in for his second term on Lincoln's birthday February 12th, while utilizing the Lincoln bible.

No, this is neither unintentional or simply irony. These acts are premeditated and planned to follow and mimic a predisposed desire by this administration and its unseen supporters, to cast Barack Obama in the same light as Abraham Lincoln. For the good of the nation.

Lincoln has been seen as both the great divider and the great uniter by history. Lincoln was the president who tore this nation asunder through unconstitutional policy and civil war. Lincoln was the president who oversaw the destruction of all opposition to his policies and he was the president who suspended the constitution and American civil liberties and freedom of the press for four years in order to insure that his path was unobstructed in his conquest of absolute power.

In my observation, Barack Obama sees himself in the exact same light as Lincoln. He views himself and his actions with the same indignation toward those who have faith in their religion and the constitution that protects their rights as did Lincoln. Therefore, Obama will act in a similar fashion when he believes that he can justify governing by fiat and presidential decree to attack and eliminate all rights and civil liberties in conflict with his egalitarian Fabian socialist design.

What we are presently witnessing doesn't just involve the attack on our constitutionally protected rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion or the right to bear arms, but it also involves the denial of our most basic rights to assemble or engage in any action that this administration perceives as threatening to its own purposes once the assertions of presidential decree are thrust upon a willing population of the dumb masses.

No, none of this is by chance and none of this is simple parody. These actions are intentional and by intelligent design and their purposes are being constructed in the darkness for the day when absolute assertions will be made to the American people as it concerns their rights as Americans and this president's right to supersede those rights and rule as an absolute tyrant.

Harry Belafonte: Obama should jail his opposition

It's not necessarily sad that Harry Belafonte would say such a thing.  

It is necessarily sad but more importantly revealing to know that many of Obama's voters would agree with the man.

Know that this mindset isn't, in the minds of many, as radical as you and I might think.

Now America, back to your reality TV shows and your video games