budbromley

Ron Paul is the best man to be the next President. However, though I don’t like it, he was not able to persuade enough Americans to win even the GOP majority. Paul got my money and my vote in the primary and I tried to persuade many of his truths.

But, we have to be realistic.

Second, Romney has demonstrated business skills and experience far beyond Obama’s (which are non-existent), and also beyond Paul’s for handling an economic crisis.  Romney was demonstrating moral while Obama was sucking a bong and looking at porn or worse with his mentor.  Romney’s conservative principles with regard to government are not nearly as strong as Ron’s based on their records, but then Romney’s principles are far better than Obama’s.  Romney was building American enterprises while Obama was organizing against them, filing discrimination suits to coerce banks into subprime mortgages, training ACORN community organizers in the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.

Third, Obama has already demonstrated where he is taking this country… off a cliff into a chaos, tyranny and a de-developed and diminished America.  Fourth, Romney SAYS he is not going there.

Without further analysis, this decision boils down to going in the same (negative) direction Obama is going today and where he will probably accelerate OR voting for Romney’s promise of a change in direction toward more conservative principles. Already at the point in the analysis, I would vote for Romney.

But there’s more.  Romney and Obama’s foreign policy positions are clearly NOT the same. For example, Obama clearly does not support Israel and Romney does…according to the current Israeli Prime Minister who is looking down Iran’s gun barrel.  What more proof do you need?  Obama stated he will stand with Muslims, while Romney slaps Obama and Clinton with the simple but obviously true statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Romney supports Poland, Obama didn’t.  It could not be more clear.  Obama and Clinton, by their appeasement, are leading this country into war, perhaps unwittingly, by essentially waving a wave flag in front of an enraged bull (Iran and radical Islam). Make no mistake, Islamists intend to dominate the earth. We can’t hide our heads in the sand and expect they will leave use alone.  Libertarian President Thomas Jefferson had to send the first U.S. Navy ships and Marines to stop Muslim pirates.  Appeasement starts wars.  Wars stopped by appeasement are known as surrender.

Obama will try to institute gun control, Romney will not…and did not in Massachusetts (I live there and have a license). Instead, Romney brought the NRA and gun-control advocates to the negotiation table to draft proposals for MA’s existing gun law.

Obama clearly supports and is supported by big banks. Romney at least has the financial and economic clout and background to understand what is at stake in the economy, while Obama clearly is lost without a clue, led around by the nose. Romney is also supported in this election by big banks, but he does not really need that money and could be (yet to be proven) less beholden to crony politics than Obama.  Obama proven over and over that he is beholden.

Romney gives a huge portion of his income to charity (~19%) and Romney’s income is self-made, while Obama gives a pittance (less than 1%) to charity and Obama is a made man paying millions to hide something in his past while hiring thugs like Rahm Emanuel, Van Jones, SEIU, and ACORN.

Ron and Rand, Bill McClintoch, Marc Rubio, Jim deMint and several others have a chance of influencing Romney, but they have no chance of influencing Obama. Romney says he will reduce the size of government, while Obama has been steadily increasing the size of government.

Obama is the rotten bird in the hand, Romney is the live bird in the bush.

The whole tax system is upside down in terms of incentives.

There should be no tax on income or savings.  Tax should be on consumption, not on income.  The tax rate on consumption could be progressive, but that is a matter for a separate discussion.   Consumption that was purchased with food stamps or welfare checks should be taxed.  If one wishes to avoid or reduce the tax, then one delays or reduces consumption, or learns better shopping habits, resulting in increased savings and investments.  The entire economy would improve.

One might argue that taxing welfare checks is not productive. But that is easily proved to be false. We would be teaching behaviors which are desired and productive for the individual and society. Teach people to fish, don’t give them fish. Our current system is indeed teaching people, but teaching the wrong behaviors.

Healthcare and other such services should also be taxed as consumption, even if the funds used to pay for the healthcare came from an insurance policy. That would result in a competitive healthcare market. People would shop around for the best doctor/drug/hospital for the money.

Rio+20 failed (and Copenhagen, Kyoto before them) because it did not address the real cause of the problem.  For example, if your purpose or goal is to stop the melting of glaciers in the Rockies, you are doomed to fail at that goal if your actions are directed at the wrong cause of the melting.

Documenting the EFFECTS which would  occur if and when the glaciers melt with myriad studies does not provide information about nor confirm the CAUSE.  If a scientist is sincerely trying to save corral but does not understand the cause of the problem, most likely they will have sampling problems in their studies.  Coral adapts by moving to a different location if the water is too warm; the reef moves deeper or further north.  If you sampled the same location over time, which would make sense if the cause was ocean acidification, then you would miss the new coral heads forming 100 miles north.

This is precisely was is occurring in the climate change issue and other UN-proposed treaties like UNCLOS.  The UN IPCC, EPA, Al Gore, EDF, WWF, etc are reciting a litany of effects which might or might not occur, replete with multimillion dollar grants and movies.  But even after 30 years and spending billions they do not have reproducible evidence validating the CAUSE of global warming or cooling, and they will not discuss or debate CAUSE, and demonize you if you ask.  The UN IPCC just released a new 500+ page report detailing impacts, risks and futures, but no evidence as to cause.  Beautiful graphics, expensively prepared, but nothing that speaks to cause.

Their behavior indicates that their real goal is different from what they are saying.  Their real goal as judged by their behavior is to raise money.  A corollary: judge a policy, project or program by its outcome with regard to a validated cause, instead of the stated intent.

Thus, the earth has been slowing and intermittently warming since the last ice age, but so far no one knows the cause.  Various hypotheses are being and have been tested.  CO2 has been thoroughly tested and it failed.  But, the “warmists” continue with the CO2 story built over 3 decades at the cost of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent because their real goal was not to stop warming.  Their real goal was to tax carbon, and to make us all feel guilty enough to not object to the taxes and inevitable price increases.

In fact, the economist who built the computer models for trading carbon credits was funded by The Joyce Foundation when Obama sat on its board of directors and another board director at that time is president of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).  https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml  Al Gore and the UN’s Maurice Strong were directly tied to CCX until early 2009 when it was sold to ICE (International Commodity Exchange)  in Atlanta.  Goldman Sachs was the largest CCX shareholder.  CCX was expecting $25 trillion per year in trades on carbon credits, on which CCX would be paid commission and fees.

Obviously, if there is no tax on carbon, then there is no need to trade carbon credits to offset carbon taxes.  Obama’s EPA is ignoring the science and the economics and taxing carbon anyway.  The House has already voted to defund the EPA’s activities regarding climate change and separately also to defund the UN IPCC.  Canada, eco-conscious and one of the early adopters of the global warming story, has defunded its climate change activities and renounced the UN IPCC program, as have Russia, China, Czechoslovakia.

By the way, Al Gore’s mentor Maurice Strong (a Canadian) is the same guy who was former Assistant Secretary General of the UN running the Iraq “Oil for Food” program until he ran from the U.S. and his UN job -having been caught red handed with a million dollar bribe check from Saddam Hussein.

You and I share interest in coral reefs and the environment, but climate change is a giant fraud.  Lawyers will make a LOT of money in the near future litigating cases against the fraudsters.

Obama is a useful ideologue idiot. Pravda is advancing the same causes as The Council of Foreign Relations in the US, JP Morgan Chase, and similar organizations and governments in 8 other countries. Here are excerpts from “The Anglo-American Establishment” by Carroll Quigley, historian for the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) during the 1960’s. Quigley was professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He was an instructor at Princeton and Harvard; a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration; and the U.S. Navy. He was also one of Bill Clinton’s teachers. Watch to end of this 10 minute video summary… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxfGSIHvOgc

Here is the full length 80 minute interview with G. Edward Griffin explaining the left-right DEM-GOP paradigm and collectivism, regardless of which party is in power, and the work of Carroll Quigley.  Quigley historian for the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) during the 1960’s. Quigley was professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He was an instructor at Princeton and Harvard; a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration; and the U.S. Navy. He was also one of Bill Clinton’s teachers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU&feature=related

Here’s excellent reading if you want to know what is really happening with global warming/climate change/sustainability. Covers recent science on sea level change, arctic ice cover, storms and weather events, etc. It’s a thorough rebuttal of the EPA, IPCC, and alarmists. Lots of references and links. http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Peabody_Science-of-Climate-Change.pdf

Obamacare, if enacted as proposed, eventually will result in a healthcare industrial complex crippled by the same problem as the UN IPCC and the EPA: the failure of the scientific peer review process. There will be one big difference: the climate crisis is not real, but the failure of the peer review process is guaranteed to cause a real crisis in health care, and inevitably a crisis with your personal health care or the health care of someone in your family.

Obamacare, requires multiple concatenated, multi-disciplinary task forces and committees to report recommendations up to the head of HHS; healthcare by consensus. Over time, these will become bureaucracies and fiefdoms like the IPCC committees, NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, and the EPA, all of which are now accused of fraud. How will this community-organized healthcare industrial complex work if the scientific peer review process has failed? How will it work if the credibility of a scientist or a medical research institute or a diagnostic instrument company on the task force is established by political connections and willingness to “tow the party line,” instead of credibility validated by empirically replicated science and engineering? The healthcare industrial complex will be unable to evaluate or debate the underlying science, having been institutionally hindered by conflicting interests. Healthcare will fail just as the Copenhagen and Rio+20 climate conferences failed.

Are you ready to trust your health care to a railroad engineer? Is a social worker’s opinion part of the consensus that sets the ‘standard of care’ for the cleaning procedures for a kidney dialysis machine between patients? Do a career politician and the community have a vote in the consensus decision which defines the ‘standard of care’ for your next medical procedure?  This are part of Obamacare.

If the peer review process is not repaired by the professional scientific societies, then your health is in danger, with or without Obamacare.  Arguably, we are already in danger.  The managers within each professional society have fiduciary responsibility to diligently manage the peer review process and professional ethics within that profession, but that is not happening today.  For that reason, many scientists and physicians are resigning from their professional societies.

Managers of professional societies cannot delegate their diligence responsibilities to other  organizations, such as one of the hundreds of new Obamacare agencies.  To do so would contradict the definition of peer review process. A meta-organization such as the National Academies of Science or National Research Council (or a multi-disciplinary committee as defined in Obamacare) does not have the skills or experience to replicate experiments and evaluate the data; attempting such a process would look like the UN IPCC and their gray literature instead of peer reviewed science.  The UN IPCC is a political organization, and  Obamacare mandates hundreds of similar political agencies, and these agencies will be making your health care decisions.

A properly functioning scientific peer review process keeps an organization or an individual honest and focused on goal … typically the means justify the end result. In contrast, in political ideologies typically the ends justify the means; a certain community organizer comes to mind. Politics and science are opposite in many respects.

The problem of junk science in the human-caused global warming fraud is just the tip of the iceberg. The problems will spread unless the peer review process within professional societies is fixed.

Management and editors at professional scientific societies are negligent in their failure to vigorously condemn scientific organizations and individual scientists who have not made their data and methods available to other investigators. These societies should be removing the publications by these scientists or clearly marking them as unvalidated work.  The societies and editors should not have published the work in the first place. The societies and the managers of these societies have not fulfilled their fiduciary responsibility to their members and sponsors and the result is now many examples of failure of the scientific peer review process.

Recently there have been many more revelations about fraud among global warming proponents. Phil Jones, manager and scientist at the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit has resigned.  Serious problems with distorted climate data from NOAA and NASA have been described by D’Aleo, Watts and others.  The EPA is faced with several lawsuits and a Congress determined by good reason to stop EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.  If a similar scandal were to happen in the healthcare industrial complex, there would be a real healthcare crisis and people would be dying.  The global warming alarmists are spending billions of dollars measuring sea level by the millimeters, CO2 by parts per million, and temperature changes in tenths of degrees over decades.

A couple of years ago, the TV show “60 Minutes” calculated that fraudulent healthcare claims total $60 billion a year.  Does anyone believe that the amount of fraud will now decline since Obamacare creates hundreds of new agencies in more than 900 pages of law?   If so, then yes, I have that proverbial bridge to sell you.

Where is the vigorous condemnation of this non-scientific behavior among the professional scientific societies? Where are the internal investigations of failures in the peer review processes within the scientific societies?  Where is the rejection of these unethical scientists from their peer review groups?  The editorial corrections for un-substantiated reporting are extremely rare.

Posted below is the commendable statement to the UK Parliament by The British Institute of Physics which describes problems with peer review process in the global warming fraud. The American Physical Society (APS) and the American Chemical Society (ACS) have taken the opposite position, having decided to endorse work by some of their members and defer to the UN IPCC; APS and ACS managers have inappropriately delegated their responsibility, when instead they should be demanding to review the underlying science and investigating their internal peer review problems.  Members and sponsors (including Congress) of U.S. professional societies should be actively condemning negligent management and taking legal action against management if they do not respond appropriately.  Where is the vigorous repudiation by Congress of the UN IPCC and its negligence, malfeasance and fraudulent peer review process?  American taxpayers are paying for a big part of UN fraud.

It is the negligence of management at these societies which is destroying the professional credibility of scientific societies. These managers are defending their bureaucracy and budget.  As a result, the world is accelerating backwards down a slippery slope into chaos and dependency on government by consensus.

Consensus and crony capitalism are life threatening when used in sciences, engineering and healthcare, but that is exactly what is defined in Obamacare. Citizens and Congress can act to stop it or else watch as our standard of living slides into the third world and beyond.

March, 2010 ———Updated July 13, 2012
Letterhead

Parliamentary Business

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics
February 2010

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/sdsf-1.pdf

Beginning July 2, 2012 representatives from many of the world’s socialist, tyrannical and dictatorial regimes are meeting at United Nations headquarters inNew Yorkfor a month-long meeting, in which they’ll put the finishing touches on an international Arms Trade Treaty that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm.

Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and many more American politicians supportU.S.agreement to this UN treaty.

Here is a copy of June 29 letter from 130 members of Congress to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton regarding UN Arms Treaty.  http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/ATT%20Letter.pdf

Here’s more from Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), NRA’s chief lobbyist. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/02/congressmen-urge-the-un-to-trample-the-us-constitution/     or

http://www.nraila.org/

Forbes magazine explains: “U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms”   http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

Dick Morris explains the treaty is planned to be signed July 27. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZeJpXLsVCI&feature=youtu.be

Here is the official UN website:  http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Here is a good blog report linking Fast and Furious and the UN Arms Control Treaty  http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/05/small-arms-treaty-of-2012-elimination-of-the-second-amendment/

You can send a letter to your members of Congress and President Obama for free at this link.
http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/5270/tell-congress-obama-no-small-arms-treaty/

Here’s my letter

July 4, 2012

Dear President Obama:
Dear Representative Tierney:
Dear Senator Kerry:
Dear Senator Brown:
We are hearing a lot of talk on the internet that the Obama administration and some senators are considering in secret a UN treaty on small arms. Please let me know if these stories are true.

I strongly urge you to actively discourage and to vote against any version of a United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

The government of the United States does not have authority under the Constitution to prevent Americans from owning and bearing arms. Nor is it within the authority of our government to determine which arms or ammunition Americans may own and for what purpose. Therefore, the government of the United States does not have authority to negotiate with the United Nations on this subject. This is not a matter of my personal opinion or interpretation versus yours. If you do not understand and agree, then, according to the Constitution which you are duty bound to protect and defend, you are incapable of fulfilling the duties of your office.

I vow to make sure that any politician who votes for or supports this treaty, or any other treaty which reduces the sovereignty of American citizens such as the Law of the Sea Treaty currently being promoted by Senator Kerry, will be voted out of office.

Thank you in advance for protecting the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sincerely,

Clare Livingston Bromley, III

It is likely that Holder, Clinton and Axelrod conspired in the design of ‘Fast and Furious.’  Probably Obama approved it.  Most likely Eric Holder will stand trial in a civil case brought by families of those killed by “Fast and Furious.”  Holder will lose the civil case and be fined some millions of dollars, if he is responsible.  An Obama pardon won’t help him in a civil case.

But who else is responsible?  Could it be that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is negotiating the UN Small Arms Treaty and intends to link it to Fast and Furious.   Many think so.  Was the the Obama administration orchestrating Fast and Furious in order to sway U.S. public opinion so the public would allow the UN Small Arms Treaty to be ratified by the Senate, and failing that to be enacted by yet another Obama Executive Order?  Is this the unconstitutional and deadly plot that is concealed by DOJ documents and Obama’s claim of Executive Privilege?

Bill Whittle at Pajamas Media connects the dots for you in this 5 minute video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFIpoL3jrfo#!

Fast and Furious was a re-start and modification of previous gun walking program shut down in the Bush administration, even run by the same administrator, but Fast and Furious was much weaker, no GPS tracking, no confiscation of the tracked weapons, no coordination withMexico, and 300 are confirmed dead.

And here is Eric Holder on CSPAN in 1995, reciting the narrative: “people need to be ‘Brainwashed’ about owning guns.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7mhP2dyz60

The fingerprint of political motive in the Obama administration against 2^nd Amendment interests is obvious.  Instead of doing their duty to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Obama and his acolytes Holder and Clinton intend to change it even by any means possible, including murders.  Remember, the end justifies the means according to their Saul Alinksy training.

If the Obama administration had intended to stop the flow of guns, then they would have used GPS and made immediate arrests in a controlled operation with Mexican authorites, as was done in the program halted during the Bush administration.  The field operation in Arizona for both the Obama program and the Bush program were run by the same DOJ administrator.  But the Obama team didn’t do that.  Instead they ran an uncontrolled program with no GPS in the guns and no pick up of the gun runners and assault rifles, and no coordination with Mexican authorities.  As a result an estimated 300 died.  The only conclusion is that the Obama administration wanted a tragedy, wanted another crisis.  The Obama administration wanted to use that crisis to turn American opinion against gun retailers and guns.  They wanted an excuse to re-start the assault weapons ban of the Clinton administration, and to obtain Senate ratification of the UN Arms Treaty being negotiated by Secretary Clinton.   Their intent was to blame Bush, and indeed Holder attempted to do exactly that in his early Congressional testimony.  Claims that the Obama administration was acting in good faith are specious, without merit and will not hold up in criminal court.

• AG Eric Holder lied to Congress, which was conducting a legitimate inquiry after death of a U.S. border patrol officer.
• Holder withheld information from Congress after a legitimate subpoena
• Holder is held in contempt of Congress, even Democrats in Congress agreed.
• House authorized criminal charges to be filed against Holder, even Democrats agreed.
• The decision to file criminal charges is left up to Ronald Machen, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia— who answers to Holder, and was appointed by Obama.
• At DOJ request, Obama declares executive privilege to prevent criminal charges against Holder’s, which would have meant Holder’s removal from office, and to protect the withheld documents.
• DOJ announces Holder will not be charged with criminal charges.
• Most likely the House Republicans will move forward on civil charges against Holder.  (Precedent:  There was a civil case against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for contempt of Congress, despite Bush declaring executive privilege.  The case was resolved when civil charges were brought in 2009, after Bush had gone into retirement, and the public — and political — notice given was minor.  But there were no deaths in this case.)
• Along with the House’s civil case, the family of the slain U.S. border patrol officer will seek monetary damages along with perhaps hundreds of Mexicans.
• President Obama could pardon Holder from criminal conviction if Obama is still in office, but Obama can do nothing to stop the civil trial of Holder and others.
• You are kidding yourself if you think the family of the slain U.S. border officer/Marine war hero will not pursue Holder and whoever is responsible in civil court.

And all of the above we know BEFORE we know what’s in the wiretaps and the statements by the several whistleblowers.

Meanwhile, at the DOJ, the whistle blowers have been assigned to a DOJ administrator who vowed to “f–k” them.  http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/2012-06-29-CEG-DEI-to-DOJ-OIG-Thomasson-whistleblower-retaliation.pdf

Here is a good blog report linking Fast and Furious and the UN Arms Control Treaty  http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/05/small-arms-treaty-of-2012-elimination-of-the-second-amendment/

For reference, here is the situation in the George W Bush administration that was covered by Executive Privilege after contempt of Congress by the Democrat-controlled House.  This was small potatoes mundane, less criminal than Watergate, and no one was killed, unlike the 300+ killed in Fast and Furious.

Per CNN:

Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten were accused of failing to cooperate in a congressional investigation into the mass firings ofU.S.attorneys and allegations that the White House was using the Justice Department for political aims. Their citations marked the first time White House officials had been found in contempt of Congress.  Republicans walked out.

See also:

Sussing the motive behind Fast and Furious  https://budbromley.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=250&action=edit

Here is a good list of the 20 new taxes from ObamaTax, and 7 middle class taxes, all equaling over $500B over the next 10 years.

“No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” President Obama

“If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty – yes, twenty – hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.” (1) Robert Bonelli

Summarized by David Chaney: The Seven Middle Class Taxes (and 13 with indirect impact on Middle Class)

1. Individual Mandate Tax

“The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

2. Medicine Cabinet Tax

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

3. Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

4. Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

5. Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

6. Indoor Tanning Services Tax

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

7. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households. While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners. Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.” (1)

(1) Middle Class Tax Breakout – http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes
(2) Full list of ACA Taxes – http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010”