2008, My Best Year, As Far As Deer Hunting Goes

2008 was a rough year for me. Had a lot of changes as far as my personal life goes. But deer season went better than ever. I finished the year with 6 deer. My previous best was 5, two years ago. Before you say anything, I hunt Tennessee and Virginia, so I stayed within my limits.

Today was my last day for this year. I am already looking forward to November.

But at least now I can finally get back to the keyboard. I will pick it up in a few days but for now I would just like to pose a question to Israel:

What the Hell took you so long?

A question to the UN:

Is it possible for you to get your heads out of your asses?

The last question goes to the American people:

How long would we be willing to allow Canada or Mexico to bomb our country before we acted just as Israel is?

I don't know how you would answer this question, but this American would be ready to go the very first time.

I hope Israel stays and gets the job done. The world needs to be rid of this vermin known as Hamas.

How Far Does Foreign Aid Get You In The UN?

Not much:

The top ten recipients of foreign aid from the United States are Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Colombia, Jordan, and Kenya. Removing Israel from the equation, the remaining nine countries received an average of $1.043 billion in 2007 from American taxpayers and voted with the U.S. an average of 8.74 percent. Another example of the diminished value of the dollar.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole post.

That's $9.387 billion a year for nine countries that pretty much hate our guts. I guess I could say that since they vote with us 8.74 percent of the time.

Could someone please tell me why we are still involved with joke of an organization?

Mr. Kilgannon asks an important question:

Ronald Reagan once said that somebody “who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally.” What, then, does that make the United Nations, which opposes us nearly 80 percent of the time?

Of course, the answer is simple. The UN is one of the most anti-American groups in the world. Even though we fund the majority of there operations. The time has come to pull out.

John Bolton: "Israel, Iran, and The Bomb"

This is a great article:

Iran's test salvo of ballistic missiles last week together with recent threatening rhetoric by commanders of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards emphasizes how close the Middle East is to a fundamental, in fact an irreversible, turning point.

Tehran's efforts to intimidate the United States and Israel from using military force against its nuclear program, combined with yet another diplomatic charm offensive with the Europeans, are two sides of the same policy coin. The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years.

Read the rest at the link. You will not be disappointed.

I had to add this paragraph:

Thus, instead of debating how much longer to continue five years of failed diplomacy, we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible. At a minimum, we should place no obstacles in Israel's path, and facilitate its efforts where we can.

How true this line is: "We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result..."

Oh, how I wish this man still represented us in the United (against American Issues) Nations.

Has Bush "LOST" His Mind?

His support for the Law Of The Sea treaty is not surprising:

The president continues to support the pending Law of the Sea Treaty, but a spokeswoman isn't going to speculate on how it would have affected critical U.S. operations on the sea had it been adopted earlier.

The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"

The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"

"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.

"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.

"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.

I don't avoid hypotheticals. Of course we would not have been able to do any of those things. Before we could defend our interests we would have to crawl to the UN and ask for their permission. And you know how cooperative the UN is with us. Bush and Perino both know this and do not care. Bush is a globalist, plain and simple.

Read it all, but I want to draw your attention to the last section:

The proposal would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority.

The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.

With the UN as corrupt and useless as it is, do we really want to turn our mining and fishing industries over to them?

No matter how it is spun, this would be a major loss of our sovereignty.