> The government can send their version IRS every other day to find something wrong in applying loosely defined laws. Crippling fines.

You mean like the Obama administration? [1]

All these things you describe, describe governments in general. Some group achieves political power and wields the government in benefit of their friends and in detriment of their enemies.

1: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

>It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers.

> It later emerged that liberal groups had been targeted, too, although in smaller numbers.

Yes, because if you look at the targeting criteria they've obviously been targeted less. Just going off wikipedia[0]:

  - referenced words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive,"   "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy" in the case file;
  - outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
  - involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live";
  - had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
  - advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
  - were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—known by many as Obamacare;
  - questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Whether the keyword "progressive" was really being used in the same manner has been called into question too. Again quoting off wikipedia:

  On June 27, 2013, responding to letters from Rep. Sander Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, Inspector General J. Russell George's office released a letter to Levin about the scrutiny of groups with "progressive" in their names. Contradicting earlier claims of George's office, the letter acknowledged that he knew that the word "progressive" had appeared in IRS screening documents. However, he said that the "Progressives" criteria was on a part of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical", and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not say how to refer flagged cases. While he had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention. The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".

And on top of that applications were on hold for 2 years (!) for some organizations with conservative keywords. While liberal organizations were being processed in weeks. No liberal organization, even those subject to extra screening, was put on hold like this.

Also it doesn't seem like there have been any major lawsuits over this by liberal groups. Conservative groups (total of 469 in 2 lawsuits) have sued and settled, with IRS acknowledging misconduct.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

even if what you said is true, in USA you have courts that adjudicate impartially. But the real comparison would have been Obama doing what I said to FoxNews and NewsCorp.

> courts that adjudicate impartially

How do you know this to be true? I find it to be patently false.

> Obama doing what I said to FoxNews and NewsCorp.

The government prefers to pick on the defenseless. Easier to keep Fox happy than prevent another smaller organization from gaining hold.