Chuck it all in?

Ever wonder if it is worth it to keep on living? 

Why even bother.  To live just to live? No quality, really no nothing........

Sunday 'toon

MRFF is an hate organization - just check beneath the surface

 Since I just have a tendency to just put junk here I thought about just discontinuing this page.  BUT when I read this story this morning I thought I was going to throw up.  It really made me that sick. 

 In my opinion, I thought the members of the KKK were folks that had no problem spreading their hate filled program but they don't even compare to this hate filled organization, Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  I'm surprised the Southern Poverty Law Center does not list them.  

Absolutely disgusting.  Just check what they are trying to do to an Air Force Chaplain.  Makes me sick to my stomach.

Check this out:

Military Censors Christian Chaplain, Atheists Call for Punishment

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/07/24/Military-Censors-Christian-Chaplain-Atheists-Call-for-Punishment

MRFF stands for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation -

Ann Coulter

I would, humbly, direct your attention to:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-07-17.html

Oh My God ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Just saw this... NFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hXFi0l--NPI

Probably should be leaving this crap alone..Oh well

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/law-and-justice-and-george-zimmerman/277772/

In the next few hours and days you'll likely be inundated with analysis and commentary and solemn expressions of outrage or joy about what the acquittal of George Zimmerman means -- to the nation, to its rule of law, to its politics, to its racial divide, to its deadly obsession with guns, to Florida's ALEC-infused justice system, and to probably 100 other things I can't list off the top of my head. This is what happens when a verdict comes down in a high-profile criminal trial -- when life or liberty are on the line and the country is split, and angrily so, upon the wisdom and the justice of the outcome.
To me, on its most basic level, the startling Zimmerman verdict -- and the case and trial that preceded it -- is above all a blunt reminder of the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials are not searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They never have been. Our rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights preclude it. Our trials are instead tests of only that limited evidence a judge declares fit to be shared with jurors, who in turn are then admonished daily, hourly even, not to look beyond the corners of what they've seen or heard in court.
Trials like the one we've all just witnessed in Florida can therefore never fully answer the larger societal questions they pose. They can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger. In the end, they teach only what each of us as students are predisposed to learn. They provide no closure, not to the families or anyone else, even as they represent the close of one phase of the rest of the lives of the people involved. They are tiny slivers of the truth of the matter, the perspective as narrow as if you were staring at the horizon with blinders on, capable only of seeing what was not intentionally blocked from view.

Trials like this one can never fully answer the larger societal questions they pose. They can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger.

Of course the deadly meeting last year between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had at its core a racial element. Of course its tragic result reminds us that the nation, in ways too many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge, is still riven by race. The story of Martin and Zimmerman is the story of crime and punishment in America, and of racial disparities in capital sentencing, and in marijuana prosecutions, and in countless other things. But it wasn't Judge Debra Nelson's job to conduct a seminar on race relations in 2013. It wasn't her job to help America bridge its racial divide. It was her job to give Zimmerman a fair trial. And she did.
So the murder trial of George Zimmerman did not allow jurors to deliberate over the fairness of Florida's outlandishly broad self-defense laws. It did not allow them debate the virtues of the state's liberal gun laws or its evident tolerance for vigilantes (which we now politely call "neighborhood watch"). It did not permit them to delve into the racial profiling that Zimmerman may have engaged in or into the misconduct and mischief that Martin may have engaged in long before he took that fatal trip to the store for candy. These factors, these elements, part of the more complete picture of this tragedy, were off-limits to the ultimate decision-makers.
What the verdict says, to the astonishment of tens of millions of us, is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a great deal of racial bias, and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves a young man dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime. But this curious result says as much about Florida's judicial and legislative sensibilities as it does about Zimmerman's conduct that night. This verdict would not have occurred in every state. It might not even have occurred in any other state. But it occurred here, a tragic confluence that leaves a young man's untimely death unrequited under state law. Don't like it? Lobby to change Florida's laws.
If we understand and accept these legal limitations -- and perhaps only if we do -- the result here makes sense. Purely as a matter of law, you could say, it makes perfect sense. Florida's material, admissible, relevant proof against Zimmerman was not strong enough to overcome the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The eye-witnesses (and ear-witnesses) did not present a uniformly compelling case against the defendant. The police witnesses, normally chalk for prosecutors, did not help as much as they typically do. Nor was there compelling physical evidence establishing that Zimmerman had murderous intent and was not acting in self-defense.
The case was "not about standing your ground; it was about staying in your car," the prosecutor cogently said during closing argument. But in the end, under state law favorable to men like the defendant -- that is, favorable to zealots willing to take the law into their own hands -- Zimmerman's series of deplorable choices that night did not amount to murderous intent or even the much more timid manslaughter. The defense here wisely understood that and was able consistently, methodically, to remind jurors that prosecutors had not adequately explained (or proved) how exactly the altercation started and how precisely it progressed.

This curious result says as much about Florida's judicial and legislative sensibilities as it does about Zimmerman's conduct that night.

Without a confession, without video proof, without a definitive eyewitness, without compelling scientific evidence, prosecutors needed to sell jurors cold on the idea of Zimmerman as the hunter and Martin as the hunted. But when the fated pair came together that night, in those fleeting moments before the fatal shot, the distinctions between predator and prey became jumbled. And prosecutors were never able to make it clear enough again to meet their burden of proof. That's the story of this trial. That explains this result. That's why some will believe to their own dying day that George Zimmerman has just gotten away with murder.
Maybe yes and maybe no. Technically speaking, the fact that Zimmerman now has been found not guilty under Florida law of the crimes of second-degree murder and manslaughter does not necessarily exonerate him in the world beyond the court. It does not mean that he is not culpable. This is and can never be a case where the defendant can proudly proclaim his innocence at some later date. But today's verdict, the unanimous result of six women who worked through their longest day to deliver the word, does mean that after 18 tortuous months, this tragic story now can move on to whatever comes next.
And what comes next, surely, is a wrongful death civil action for money damages brought against Zimmerman by the Martin family. That means another case, and perhaps another trial, with evidentiary rules that are more relaxed than the ones we've just seen. And that means that a few years from now, after Martin v. Zimmerman is concluded, we'll likely know more about what happened that night than we do today. That's the good news. The bad news is that no matter how many times Zimmerman is hauled into court, we will never know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what happened that terrible night. 

Only in Al Sharpton's America

Throwing this in for good measure...I think old age has really made me crotchety !  !

Just another Sunday

Totally surprised there was no rioting because of the Zimmerman verdict....

What is this world coming to when you can't count on the morons to riot? ? ? 

Why politics suck especially when a democrat runs it ! ! !

Check this out ! ! !  Disgusting.  When is he going to give a position to a pedophile?

18 and Counting: Plum Ambassador Posts Go to Obama Campaign Bundlers

July 10, 2013 - 4:17 AM

---

By Patrick Goodenough

  

President Obama has  nominated Matthew Barzun, who served as his campaign finance chairman in 2008 and 2012, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. (AP Photo, File)

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama on Tuesday nominated two major campaign bundlers to two of the most prized ambassadorships available anywhere – London and Rome – part of a pattern that has seen him reward at least 18 top fundraisers with plum diplomatic positions since 2009.
The White House said the post of ambassador to the United Kingdom will go, subject to confirmation, to Matthew Barzun, an Internet pioneer and investor who served as the Obama campaign finance chairman in 2008, as ambassador to Sweden from 2009-2011, and then again as finance chairman for the president’s 2012 campaign.
The ambassadorship to Italy will go to John R. Phillips, a Washington lawyer who chairs the president’s commission that selects candidates to be White House fellows. Phillips is the husband of Linda Douglass, a former network journalist who served as communications director for the Obama White House’s Office of Health Reform.
According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, Barzun bundled at least $500,000 for the Obama campaign in 2008 and at least $500,000 again in 2012; Phillips bundled at least $500,000 for Obama in 2012 and between $200,000 and $500,000 in 2008.
Barzun is in line to take up the post vacated by Louis Susman, a retired Chicago investment banker who bundled between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama in 2008, before being nominated as ambassador to the U.K. the following May.
Barzun and Phillips are the latest in a string of Obama bundlers to be nominated to ambassadorial posts.
Already serving are the ambassadors to Belize (bundled $100,000-$200,000 for the Obama campaign in 2008), Canada ($50,000-$100,000), Czech Republic ($200,000-$500,000), Finland ($500,000+), France ($500,000+), Japan ($500,000+) and Norway ($200,000-$500,000).
Joining them are the current U.S. ambassadors to the European Union in Brussels, and to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), based in Jakarta, both of whom bundled at least $500,000 each for the Obama campaign in 2008.
In addition, Obama has nominated another seven campaign bundlers to ambassador positions, in some cases replacing yet other bundlers who got the posts during his first term (including one who drew criticism during Obama’s re-election campaign with comments about anti-Semitism and Israel.)
Awaiting confirmation are Obama’s nominees as ambassador to Berlin (John Emerson, $100,000-$200,000), Brussels (Denise Bauer, $200,000- $500,000), Madrid (James Costos, $500,000+), Santo Domingo (James "Wally" Brewster, $500,000+), Singapore (Kirk Wagar, $500,000+), Vienna (Alexa Wesner, $200,000-$500,000) and the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva (Keith Harper, $500,000+).
Finally, Obama has nominated as ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford – not a campaign bundler, but his 2012 campaign finance director.
According to the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), giving ambassadorships to political appointees has been a common practice for presidents of both parties in recent decades.
AFSA says 187 (67.8 percent) of Obama’s ambassadorial nominations to date have been career diplomats, compared to 89 (32.2 percent) who have been political appointees.
AFSA figures for previous presidents are: George W. Bush – 30 percent political appointees; Clinton – 27.82 percent; George H.W. Bush – 31.30 percent; and Carter – 26.73 percent. It did not have figures available for President Reagan.
Political appointees tend most often to get coveted Western European and Caribbean stations, where 72 percent of all ambassador posts since 1960 have gone to them.
By contrast, only 14 percent of posts in Africa and the Middle East have gone to political appointees since 1960, and none to posts in Central Asia.
It’s a situation AFSA opposes.
“The United States is alone in this practice; no other major democracy routinely appoints non-diplomats to serve as envoys to other countries,” it says in a statement on its website.
“The appointment of non-career individuals, however accomplished in their own field, to lead America’s important diplomatic missions abroad should be exceptional and circumscribed, not the routine practice it has become over the last three decades.”
The Foreign Service Act of 1980 states that “positions as chief of mission should normally be accorded to career members of the Service.”
The legislation adds that ambassadorial nominees “should possess clearly demonstrated competence to perform the duties of a chief of mission, including, to a maximum extent practicable, useful knowledge of the principal language or dialect of the country in which the individual is to serve, and knowledge and understanding of the history, the culture, the economic and political institutions, and the interests of that country and its people.”
And, it says, “Contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission.”

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS. 
CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/18-and-counting-plum-ambassador-posts-go-obama-campaign-bundlers#sthash.Fg0Nhthm.dpuf

Sunday's Funnies

July 7 is . . . . . National Strawberry Sundae Day

Saturday........

Had an INR of 2.3 yesterday and I decided to have a few beers in celebration.

So........................ had 2 Corona Lights which tasted heavenly.  First beer in almost 3 years.  Well since I fell down and played dead which was


Event: Long since I fell down and played dead
Since  7/10/2010  07:35 PM
2 years 11 months 26 days 12 hours 49 minutes 58 seconds or
155 weekends or
1,092 days or
26,196 hours (17,464 waking hours) or
1,571,809 minutes or
94,308,598 seconds

Dr Phil show ............

Instead of anything 4th of Julyish I present to you this nuttiness:



http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20130703-124612-3041


Just read the comments section....about spewed my coffee onto the screen.  Am I as stupid for reading theses comments as those who make them?///

Weight Items for June 2013

Looks like I am really starting to stabilize at the 155 to 160 weight range.  Good deal.

Motility basically under semi-control and can almost do "things" like normal people do.