The Gay Thing: Military To Extend Benefits To Same-Sex Spouses Of Gay Veterans

I have a good (straight) friend who is an Army veteran, who advised me that the whole marriage equality issue will be settled in a positive way, because for a coherent cohesive military policy, it must be. I've got to admit, that seems to be how it's playing out. The military operates on rules and order. You can't throw their veterans' benefits into disarray over state squabbles about who was married where, and just who is considered married there. It's all or nothing, and it's looking inevitable that it's going to be all. It's just a shame that it has to take so many baby steps. At least this story is a big step.

[Excerpt]

Obama, Holder Direct Military To Extend Benefits To Same-Sex Spouses Of Gay Veterans

In a dramatic move, Attorney General Eric Holder, on President Barack Obama‘s authority, has directed the military to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of gay veterans. Previously, Title 38, a military provision specifically defining marriage as a man and a woman, had prevented spouses of gay vets from accessing benefits that heterosexual spouses are entitled to. The Attorney General, in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, announced the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling had allowed him to now ignore that provision. . .

Read more at: New Civil Rights Movement

Louie Gohmert is Apparently Insane

If you put your ear to his mouth, you can hear
the ocean. Image from Business Insider.

Yeah, I know. What else is new, right? I swear, this guy is like Berkeley Breathed character.

[Excerpt]

The Most Bizarre Moment From Attorney General Eric Holder's Congressional Hearing

Attorney General Eric Holder's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday grew heated, as members of Congress grilled him on everything from the Justice Department's obtaining of Associated Press phone records to President Barack Obama's Labor Secretary nominee, Thomas Perez. . .

Read more: Business Insider

Justice Department Secretly Obtains AP Phone Records

President & CEO of AP Gary Pruitt, from Yahoo!

Ever hear a headline, instinctively think it's a bad thing, but not really know how to put your hands around it? That's this one, at least so  far, to me. Over all, I think we've lost a lot of privacy since September 11, 2001, and I don't like that. On the other hand, we've willingly given up a lot  of it as a people. And I have to tell you, that with the Patriot Act, the various government entities with massive powers, the glossing over of warrentless wiretaps, and the like, I'm not sure what's legal anymore.

Unlike the Benghazi "scandal" (which I think is pure and simple a scalp hunt), and the IRS/Tea Party thing (which I think is completely justifiable), this one could turn into something. I don't know if it goes all the way to the top, but I can see it shaking up the Justice Department. But I also think it's too early to make snap judgements before we know why it was done, and what Justice's. . .um. . .justification? is.

[Excerpt]

Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls. . .

Read more at: Yahoo! News

Not so "Fast and Furious?"

I didn't get into reading this story until almost bedtime, but it's looking to be something of a big story. I am always deeply suspicious of whatever has Right-wing World spinning off its axis, and Fast and Furious seemed like mostly a bunch of caterwauling by conservative bloggers to me.* And now it is looking like it may be just that. Except that with tea partiers like Darrell Issa in Congress, the fringe has become mainstream.

[Excerpt]


Not So Fast And Furious

There has been a storm brewing in the right-wing blogosphere for months. Accusations of corruption and conspiracy have been flying about in regards to the department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm’s (ATF) program titled “Fast and Furious.” If you listened to the blogosphere, the ATF was knowingly handing the guns to dangerous criminals. . .

Read more at: Addicting Info

Read the original investigation at: Fortune

Read the rebuttal at (ugh): Townhall


*I'm aware that an agent died in this whole thing, and I don't mean to minimize that. I don't think anybody defends Fast and Furious as a good idea (not even the movies). But it has been blown up by the right, into something it may not be. And the conspiracy part about it being a ploy for Obama to impose gun control is just loopy.

New Attorney General Agrees Not to Pursue Bush Administration?

Photo of Kit Bond from source, Raw Story

I'm still trying to figure out this story. Would the new Attorney General really privately pledge--to a single Republican Congressman--that he would not prosecute Bush Administration officials found to have broken the law? Really? And why would the "rule of law" party seek out such a promise?

The answer to that last one is easy. "Rule of law" is just a slogan to Republicans. Like "freedom," "democracy," or "Constitutional rights." When they say any of those things, it is not meant to be taken literally for goodness' sake! It's to inspire warm, fuzzy thoughts of bald eagles, stars and stripes and fourth-of-July bunting. I mean so what if the Bush Administration broke all kinds of laws, trampled on all kinds of rights, even committed actual war crimes? Let bygones be bygones!

I'll be posting more on this subject, should there be other angles to the story. Until then, read on. . .

[Excerpt]

Republican senator says Obama nominee promised Bush officials wouldn't be prosecuted for torture

. . ."Sen. Christopher 'Kit' Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program," Eli Lake writes for the Washington Times. . .

And then:

. . ."Eric Holder has not made any commitments about who would or would not be prosecuted," the aide told Huffington Post's Sam Stein. "He explained his position to Senator Bond as he did in the public hearing and in responses to written questions. . ."

Read all of the conflicting bits of this story at: Raw Story

Eric Holder to Follow Law in Justice Department

Photo from source, TPM Muckraker

Gee, wouldn't that be novel? A Justice Department who attempts to, I dunno, dish out some justice? Change is a beautiful thing.

[Excerpt]

Holder: I'm No Gonzo -- And I'll Go After Corporate Crime

"It is incumbent upon those of us who lead the Department to ensure not only that the nation is safe but also that our laws and traditions are respected. There is not a tension between those two. We can and we must ensure that the American people remain secure and that the great constitutional guarantees that define us as a nation are truly valued. For example, working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress, should I be confirmed, we look forward to actually structuring policies that are both protective and consistent with who we are as a nation."

Read more at: TPM Muckraker