groups
http://twitter.com/#!/hboulware/status/459014302641299457
Well, ThinkProgress has finally admitted what we’ve known all along: The IRS unfairly targeted certain political groups. It’s about time!
Oh, wait:
http://twitter.com/#!/JuddLegum/status/459013838537785344
Oy.
http://twitter.com/#!/JuddLegum/status/459014652757045248
“Worth the wait.” Guess we’ll have to wait longer for libs to admit the IRS singled out a whole lot more conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
http://twitter.com/#!/JammieWF/status/459018186651095040
http://twitter.com/#!/BecketAdams/status/459014221779726336
Yep:
http://twitter.com/#!/RBPundit/status/459014855471955968
Indeed, the IRS inspector general would beg to differ with ThinkProgress’ findings:
http://twitter.com/#!/coolhandschlute/status/459017815123431425
http://twitter.com/#!/GenNerd/status/459025118367588352
As HotAir’s Allahpundit explained last year:
According to [IRS IG Russell] George, six of the 20 progressive groups that applied for tax-exemption between 2010 and 2012 received close scrutiny. Of the 292 tea-party groups that applied, …all 292 did. In fact, didn’t the IRS claim that it started flagging tea-party applications systematically in 2010 because the movement was exploding and groups’ applications for exemption were piling up? (That was a lie too, but that was their story.) That’s the supposed “nonpolitical” explanation for all this — the tea-party movement was unique in how quickly it rose and how widely it spread and therefore the agency had to look closely to make sure groups weren’t violating 501(c)(4) all over the country by meddling in campaigns. If that’s the left’s preferred narrative for what happened, then why would they think progressive groups were targeted equally or at all? There was, and is, no lefty equivalent of the movement. You can believe that institutional bias against conservatives was at work here or you can believe that tea partiers, due to the movement’s size and its interest in primaries, deserved extra scrutiny under the rules against campaigning by “social welfare” groups. The “progressives were targeted too” theory doesn’t fit with either. Especially when you remember that the president’s own political shop, Organizing for Action, somehow remains a 501(c)(4) in good standing.
In other words, ThinkProgress doesn’t seem to be telling the whole story. Color us shocked.
http://twitter.com/#!/Chris_Clukey/status/459016050915295232
http://twitter.com/#!/hboulware/status/459016854141292544
http://twitter.com/#!/Tyler_McNally/status/459015962214563840
***
Related:
Comments are closed.