Rasmussen: 71% of Voters Believe the IRS Deliberately Destroyed E-mails to Hide Guilt of Criminal Activity

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, a remarkably 71% of voters believe that the IRS deliberately and willfully destroyed emails related to IRS-gate and the targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups to hide evidence of criminal activity. Only 22% believe the IRS did not break the law, while 4% were undecided. It is fair to say that this polling is a resounding condemnation against the IRS that crosses all political parties. How bad is it when a government agency like the IRS is believed to play partisan politics and cannot be trusted?

Think about this, more than 7 in 10 individuals surveyed believe that the IRS committed a criminal activity in destruction of property and obstruction of justice to hide the guilt of their even greater criminal activity as a Democrat party ignores it and Barack Obama calls it a phoney scandal. This should be chilling for all Americans.

Most voters think it’s likely the IRS deliberately destroyed e-mails about its investigations of Tea Party and other conservative groups to hide its criminal behavior. Two-out-of-three now believe IRS employees involved in these investigations should be jailed or fired, and most suspect the agency of targeting other political opponents of the Obama administration.

As we are reminded by Real Clear Politics, a recent Fox News poll found similar results, 76% of voters surveyed believed that ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s emails were deliberately destroyed.  The distrust in the IRS was spread across all parties, including 90% of Republicans, 74% of Independents and 63% of Democrats. Only 12% of respondents believe the emails were accidently destroyed.

It gets better, these are the folks in charge of enforcing Obamacare. How’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya America?

Nancy Peosi (D-CA) Says After Tour of Humanitarian Crisis on US-Mexico Southern Border …”We are all Americans” … “Not a Crisis But an Opportunity”

UM, who was it that caused this humanitarian crisis on the US-Mexican border by not enforcing US immigration policy?

House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a press conference after her tour of the humanitarian crisis of thousands unaccompanied minors flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border and called it a “humanitarian  opportunity”. HUH? Of course that was after she commented that “We are all Americans”. Which sadly is the real reason why San Fran Nan cares at all about this situation on the border … turning a crisis into an opportunity and making thousands of “unaccompanied children” US citizens and government dependent Democrat voters.

We have to ask ourselves, why did this happen under the Obama administration at this time? What else would folks think from South American countries when you do not enforce United States immigration policy?

Let’s make this an opportunity to crate future government dependent Democrat voters

Pelosi explained, “We are all Americans — north and south in this hemisphere,” and urged America to see this as not a crisis but an opportunity “to be helpful.” She also said she wished she could simply “take home” the thousands of children temporarily housed in the overburden facilities.

According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, in the past fiscal year more than 47,000 unaccompanied children have crossed the border into the United States through Mexico with the majority coming from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

VIDEO - KGBT Action 4 News

Press Conference Q&A:

Put your money where your mouth is Nancy. Powerline points out that we could put many of these young people that you claim to care so much out in and on the many homes and property you own. Take them home with you, if you really mean it.

Pelosi said repeatedly that she wants to take all the kids she has seen in Texas home. Actually, she could: not all, but quite a few of them. The Obama administration certainly wouldn’t stop her from breaking the law. And Pelosi’s various mansions could house quite a few Central Americans. Her husband Paul, the brains of the family, is a very rich man, which frees Nancy to fool around with politics. This is the Pelosi mansion in San Francisco.

Nancy could house 20 or 30 Central Americans there. But that’s nothing. The Pelosi vineyard in Napa Valley could be home to several hundred. Look at the low population density!

Archivist of the U.S. David Ferriero Testifies to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Lois Lerner Lost Emails … ” IRS Didn’t Follow the Law “

IMAGINE THAT, THE OBAMA IRS BROKE THE LAW …

On Tuesday, David Ferriero, the top United States archivist of federal records, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the IRS broke the law when it failed to report loss of emails. David S. Ferriero, the chief archivist at the National Archives said, “In accordance with the Federal Records Act, when an agency becomes aware of an incident of unauthorized destruction, they must report the incident to us.” Ferriero told the House Oversight Committee that federal agencies are supposed to report whenever their records are destroyed or even accidentally deleted; however, he stated that nobody told the National Archives after emails from IRS official Lois Lerner vanished after a computer failure in 2011. Imagine that? How about the six others whose computers miraculously crashed as well? Were they reported?

The top U.S. official in charge of archiving federal records testified Tuesday that the IRS ran afoul of the law by neglecting to tell his office that a trove of emails from the woman at the center of the targeting scandal disappeared after an apparent hard drive crash.

Archivist of the U.S. David Ferriero, speaking before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, made clear that federal agencies are supposed to report whenever their records are destroyed or even accidentally deleted. But he said that after emails from embattled IRS official Lois Lerner vanished after a computer failure in 2011, nobody told the National Archives.

“They did not follow the law,” Ferriero said.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Blasts Barack Obama for the Bowe Bergdahl Fiasco and Demands for Obama’s Impeachment … “Mr. President, You are Destroying This Country”

WOW, JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO SAYS WHAT MANY AMERICANS FEEL, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH … MUST WATCH VIDEO!

Over the weekend in her opening monologue Judge Jeanine Pirro blasted President Barack Obama for the release of the GITMO 5, the five high ranking Taliban terrorists, in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl. But this may have just been the final straw of many scandals and reprehensible acts against the military that question whether Obama is a real Commander in Chief.

Pirro went on to shred Obama in saying the following: “And make like you respect the military.  You call yourself a Commander in Chief, but what Commander in Chief does not support a surge but sends in 40,000 troops anyways? What Commander in Chief reduced benefits to those in the military, closed the Veteran War Memorial, reduced the army to pre-WWII levels, knowingly allows veterans to die in our hospitals. While replenishing the enemy in a time of war. Mr. President, you are destroying this country.”

Jeanine Pirro concluded with, “You are not a true Commander in Chief. We impeached a President for lying about sex with an intern. Your actions are far more egregious. demand impeachment.”

Mr. President, you did not just release them [GITMO 5] … you unleashed them!!!

Jonathan Turley Says Barack Obama is the President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be … Constitutional Tipping Point

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT …

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley went on the Hannity Show and said the unthinkable, or should we say the unmentionable when it comes to Barack Obama, he compared him to Richard Nixon. Jonathan Turley, who mostly supports the policies of Obama, stated that we are at a tipping point constitutionally. Turley went on to call the Obama presidency an “imperial presidency, an uber presidency” and one “where the president can act unilaterally.” Folks, this is coming from a liberal.  Then came the money line … “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”

People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.

VIDEO – Real Clear Politics: click on pic to watch

Transcript from RCP:

SEAN HANNITY: We do have co-equal branches of government, separation of powers. You teach this regularly. You agree with the president politically. For you to say we are at a tipping point constitutionally — now, I agree with you. What does that mean considering our constitution is our rule of law and they are ignoring it?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, unfortunately our system is changing, and it’s changing without a debate. Or even a discussion about what we’re going to do in the future when we have a three branch system, a tripartite system but one branch is so dominant. What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I’ve called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that.

What’s troubling is that we have a system that has been stable precisely because these are limited and shared powers. This president has indicated that he’s just not willing to comply with some of those aspects. He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you’re not allowed to go it alone.

SEAN HANNITY: If I broke the law, why do I think they would be the first people to hand kickoff me, perp walk me and send me off to jail. This is just my belief system. Paranoia or truth?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don’t seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it’s there to protect individual liberty, it’s there to protect us from the concentration of power. That’s what is occurring here. You know, I’ve said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he’s been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we’ve fought for decades.