PredatorBDU.com

If you are looking for quality tactical clothing look no further than PredatorBDU.com

Offering clothing from Propper. Military clothing, EMT clothing, public safety, etc.

Climategate

Here are the problems I have.

Over the life of our planet we know the following:

- The planet has been much hotter vs today and the planet has been much colder vs today.
- As such we know that it is normal for the planet to vary in temperature
- We also know that during periods when it was much warmer and much cooler those periods were not associated with mass extinctions, etc. The planet did just fine.

So we are left with the following questions.

If it is normal that the planet changes temperatures, why are we concerned now that it is changing again?

If in the past these changes did not bring about catastrophe, why do we think that a change in temperature this time will?

If the planet is known to vary in temperature why do we think that this time it is NOT NORMAL but man made?

Since the normal state of the Earth is to change temps...how is it that we are 100% certain that this time it is different...IE not normal but man made?

And getting to the CRU if it is man made this time...and as a whole our governments are attempting to make massive changes...then the following is necessary.

- All raw data purporting to show man made warming must be available for scrutiny.
- All models used to show man made warming or make future predictions about the state of the planet in the future must be open to all scientists for verification.
- Science requires testing and validation. It seems that the process currently has not been open.

If the science is settled then I would imagine that those who believe so and have done the research would LOVE to show the full foundations of their work.

Yet over the years they have seem reluctant to do so.

Why?

If they are correct then their data will show it.

If they are unwilling to, then that would be a cause for concern.

Why The White House Should Not Control The Census

A power grab we should not allow. There is no good reason why the White House (Democrat or Republican controlled) should be in charge of the census. To much opportunity for meddling. Imagine the outcry if Bush had tried this....

"There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools.

Government Health Care Disaster

Inserted into that bill are items that could fundamentally change our health care system in a way that limits our choices and rations our care.Do we really want government managing our health care? How could anyone assume that after watching how the government handles the so called Stimulus Bill. 

Inserted into that bill are items that could fundamentally change our health care system in a way that limits our choices and rations our care.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Read that again. Pretty scary stuff.

And this....

and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs.

The arrogance of the left. They know what is best for us. While our system is far from perfect it is better that what they are proposing. 

Geert Wilders' Film

Many consider this film to be contoversial...ie anti Muslim and did not want it shown.

I don't consider it anti Muslim. Unfortunately it does show what many in the Muslim world are exposed to...and of course out of those exposed...some act upon what is said.

I think our press does a bad job in showing us what is said in many of these places. Many people have no clue that this stuff is said in front of mass audiences.

UPDATE: As of March 28 Live Leak has removed the video. If you click on the video link you will now see their reasons. Simply put they were threatened with violence.

Ironic isn't? Many people thought/think this film is controversial because it puts Islam in a bad light and shows that it has a violent strain to it.

So what happens?

Many Muslims where outraged and threatened violence. Isn't that what the film was pointing out...the violent nature of certain elements of Islam?

At some point and time people have to stop apologizing for this behavior and say enough is enough. We should not be intimidated into restraining our free speech.

UPDATE TO UPDATE: Live Leak has now put the video back up. Good for them.

Hillary Clinton & Sniper Fire

Well I always found the story amusing and unbelievable.

Why?

Does anyone really think our security forces would allow any First Lady to land in an area that was targeted by snipers? I don't.

Anyway this new video is amusing. Hat tip to Ace

Some Rev Wright Quotes

Two things strike me as I watch some of these and other videos.

- The seemingly racist tone of the comments. Imagine if that guy was a white preacher...
- The negativity this guy has for the USA.

Obama has stated this guy has been a mentor, and advisor, a role model, etc. to him. Really?

Do we want someone who implicitly approves of this negativity towards the USA?

Here are two videos. They are Fox News compilations. I have seen them elsewhere as well.

Obama, Racism and the MSM

One of the things that bothers me the most about this situation regarding Sen Obama and the Rev Wright is the vastly different way the MSM handles this vs the way it handles this issue as it relates to Republicans.

In the case of Sen Lott or Sen Thurmond, any hint of racism, association with racism, etc., was completely unacceptable.

Yet in the case of Obama, the MSM is already saying hey that speech solved everything lets move on. No real interest in asking questions about the church, the Rev Wright or way Sen Obama was a member for 20 years.

As you watch the MSM deal with this issue just remember how they dealt with it in the past when it had to do with a Republican.

Media Bias. You bet.

The Rev. Wright and Obama

I will state it up front that I am not a fan of Obama and have no intention of voting for him if he becomes the nominee for the Democratic Party.

That said, even if I were a fan of his I would still have problems with the fact that he has been associating the Rev. Wright for close to 20 years. While Obama states that he was not present at many of the more controversial sermons, it suspends belief to think that over 20 years Obama was not fully aware of the sentiments of Rev Wright.

This man was not only his pastor, but advisor, mentor, etc., etc.

Here are a couple of thoughts for you. This comes from a piece written by Lanny Davis

These two questions are:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

Good questions and something worth thinking about.

If Obama was a Republican the MSM would be all over him, and rightly so.