Hell Freezes Over and a Pig Flies!

From the Arizona Daily Star: Our View: Obama's claim of executive privilege falls flat
"But in this case, it doesn't matter what motivates the Republicans. The documents must be released."

I had thought that when Executive Priveledge was claimed for "Fast & Furious" that this seemed like a bad idea. It has seemed that the DOJ's intent was to try to bury this story for some time. Silly questions go through your head like is this a legitimate use of Executive Priveledge, how does this keep it quiet, and what am I missing in the big picture?

I would imagine that it was thought to bury this in lawsuits until after the elections. It would appear that this move has brought about greater attention and may even go so far as to get the alphabet news to talk about what the government did here.

I never expected this article out of our local fish wrap as it has always been very strongly liberal to the point of being Leftist. Local refer to it as the Red Star instead of the Daily Star.

Now for those of you who don't know where to go for this fine shirt - click the link.

Atheist for President?

A majority of Americans say they'd vote for an atheist for President.
Would you vote for an avowed atheist for prez? I will raise a fuss here and say that I have my doubts that I would but I might. For discussions sake let's go further.

Is the oath of office binding when an atheist swears to uphold the Constitution? What would he be swearing to? The Presidential oath does allow one to say "affirm" instead of "swear". The exact reasons for this are not clear. Some believe this may be the case as some Christians take not swearing as literal in all ways, such as the Quakers. Some presidents have not used the bible for the oath. John Q. Adams took the oath on a book of law and Teddy Roosevelt used no book. Many of our current politicians could take a thousand oaths on a stack of good books without anything good coming of it. The book and Constitution mean nothing to them. It carries the same weight as their promises. At least you can still truthfully call them hypocrites.

Can an atheist follow moral law? I would suggest that an atheist can subscribe to moral law but for different reasons. A religious man may believe that moral law is a sacred or divine teaching while a man without religion may feel that "doing good" is beneficial. Some would suggest that when an atheist is following moral law that it is nothing more than a whim to be abandoned at will. I would propose that if a man has been upstanding his entire life that he he will attempt to continue do so for whatever his reasons may be.

It would seems that I have made more of a case for the defense of the atheist as the President or at least have not made any valid disqualifying points. I know some atheists that I would give my house key to and some so called Christians that I don't trust at all. The people that I distrust the most are politicians. It seems to be a prerequisite to cheat, wrong, and defraud anyone in your path. The louder a politician "avows" something, the more my senses tells me to follow the money. There are a few exceptions in the group of politicians but most are not trustworthy.

It would appear that my distrust is based more on the fervency of the claim than the subject.

A quote from one the movies I like seems appropriate.
Ten Bears: "It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double-tongues."