dudewithabeard saidThanks for sharing. I will be using this.
Heh - before you do... The funny thing is that anyone who uses these articles to reference double standards are fools and lack critical thought.
Let's look at these articles - all from Salon - a fairly extreme online rag whose stock is behaving as if the company will die - probably because of its lack of readership... but that's admittedly ad hominem. Let's look at their arguments:http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/on_scandals_obama_held_to_higher_standard_than_bush/
Here's the "meat" of the article (for which they don't reference any supporting facts to support their opinions):
Bush’s use of the IRS was but one part of that larger assault. As my Salon colleague Alex Seitz-Wald notes today in greater detail, in 2005, Bush’s IRS began what became an extensive two-year investigation into a Pasadena church after an orator dared to speak out against President Bush’s Iraq War. Not coincidentally, the Los Angeles Times reports that the church targeted just so happened to be “one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal congregations.” That IRS church audit came a year after it launched a near-identical attack on the NAACP after the civil rights organization criticized various Bush administration policies.
This two year investigation was launched after political messaging from the pulpit. Complaints were launched against the church likely from conservatives because of the poltiical sermon in 2004 - this is how the Church's advocate in the interview characterized the sermon:
That's when retired Pastor George Regas preached the sermon framed as a debate between George W. Bush, John Kerry and Jesus. In case you are wondering, Jesus wins. Regas stated he wasn't telling anyone how to vote and that a person's faith might lead him or her to choose either candidate. Mostly, the sermon strongly condemned the war in Iraq and the government's treatment of the poor.
There's more here:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints_Episcopal_Church_(Pasadena,_California)[/url] (under IRS Investigation)
This was completely above board, after a complaint of a violation of the terms that allows supporters to receive charitable deductions. Let's compare this with how tea party groups were treated by the IRS:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/double-standard-irs-targeted-conservative-groups-despite-spike-in-applications/
The Daily Caller also reported that Lerner in 2011 approved an application for the charity run by Obama's half brother -- the Barack H. Obama Foundation.
While some Tea Party applications sat at the IRS office for years, the charity's application was approved within a month.
Let's also not forget that the IRS illegally provided an application to NOM by another group with confidential financial information. Then there's the citing of the NAACP - where again, it was a high profile case of their violating the terms that allowed them to grant tax deductions. Then they run off on a tangent in the article to talk about straw men that are entirely unrelated to any sort of "double standard".
And this supposedly compares with the subversive attack by the IRS with additional scrutiny and leaking of tax files? An attack that affected dozens if not considerably more organizations... Really?
And then there's the "meet the group the IRS denied":http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/
I fail to see the point here - organizations apply for the process, and they get an up or down - that's how it's supposed to work. But it didn't. In fact dozens of liberal organizations got approved while one didn't. Meanwhile, a lot more organizations just got stuck in limbo with greater scrutiny. And this is supposed to negate and be an example of a double standard?
OK so hopefully, there's more detail here:http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_the_irs_targeted_liberals/
But nope, there were complaints, investigations launched that went nowhere... so much for "when the IRS targeted liberals". It's kind of rich to say that if you break the rules you shouldn't be investigated - or even if someone claims you broke them you shouldn't be investigated... but to call it targeting is rich - and simply laughably false.
Oh and it does explain why Salon has lost so much of its readership... it might have something to do with the quality of its content.