I guess if you’re black, a lesbian, political and write a blog you’re really a national security threat in the eyes of the Pentagon. And you have to read the DOD response.

This is such a sad, pathetic bit of business that I’d normally laugh it off, but for god’s sake, what is subversive about anything I write here on PHB that the tender souls at the Pentagon need their eyes protected from? Do they think the content will give service members the vapors or make them catch THE GAY? John Aravosis:

We wrote yesterday and today that a variety of gay news sites, including AMERICAblog and Pam’s House Blend are being censored by the Pentagon for being “political, activist, blogs.”

(Straight news site DailyKos is blocked as well.)  And that other gay news sites, like Towleroad, GoodAsYou, and Bilerico, are being censored by the Pentagon for belong to the offending category “LGBT.”

Apparently PHB is not gay enough to be blocked, just “activist/political” LOLOLOL If it were only about politics, then what about this?

We also noted that anti-LGBT political activist sites, like the American Family Association (which is so anti-LGBT it’s an officially-designated hate group) and NOM are not blocked by the Pentagon.  (The Pentagon also does not block Republican political activist blogs like Red State and Breitbart, or Republican political activists like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter (several of whose sites also have blogs).

But seriously, John not only uncovered this censorship — the Department of Defense’s anti-”LGBT” Web filter category is bad enough — he also found this filter can snare gay anti-bullying and suicide prevention sites in its trap.

The Department of Defense released a tone-deaf and contradictory statement on its Facebook page when this blew up:

We’ve received some questions/comment recently about DOD’s web access policies, and wanted to provide this statement:

The Department of Defense does not block LGBT websites. The pages referenced in several recent articles were denied access based on web filters blocking the “Blog/Personal Pages” category, not the specific sites themselves. While individuals on a DoD system may visit portions of the main websites (i.e., www.towleroad.com, www.AMERICAblog.com), certain additional links/pages – to include personal blogs – are blocked. Personal pages and blogs are blocked in accordance with DoD policy allowing military commanders the option to restrict access to personal pages for operational security reasons.

As John noted, this doesn’t even pass the smell test.

First off, how can some portions of Towleroad and AMERICAblog be visitable, while the “personal blog” portions of those sites are not visitable by military personnel?  We don’t have different parts of our site and neither does Towleroad.  So what is DOD even talking about?

Second, if the Pentagon doesn’t ban LGBT content, but rather “blogs,” then why did US sailors today discover that the gay newsmagazine, the Advocate – which is not a blog – is banned on military computers found on board the ship the USS John C Stennis (CVN-74), and has been for over a year?

And for that matter, if we are to believe the Pentagon today that AMERICAblog, for example, is simply being blocked for being a blog, then why is the prominent Republican blog, Red State, not blocked on the same Air Force computers that block AMERICAblog?  One is gay and progressive, the other is straight and Republican.

Bzzt. Pentagon #FAIL.

I will say, this situation better “self-correct” in terms a filter adjustment. I don’t have a lot of faith that a DOD led by Chuck Hagel will do a damn thing about this problem.

The stupid, it burns. But it just keeps on coming. I really think that there is something wrong in the head with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Every time he opens his mouth utter nonsense comes out. Today’s classic, from an appearance on the Dennis Miller Show… (via Think Progress):

O’CONNOR: I want to ask you a question about one of your colleagues, Rep. Peter King in New York. He’s a very passionate guy, a great defender, he’s a great patriot. But he’s on board with this assault weapons ban. He was actually on MSNBC yesterday, openly saying, “I don’t understand why anybody would need an assault weapon.” I personally get nervous whenever a politician is asking me as a citizen why I need my right, but can you answer that question for your colleague? He might need some help here. Why would anyone need an assault weapon as they’re defining it?

GOHMERT: I refuse to play the game of “assault weapon.” That’s any weapon. It’s a hammer. It’s the machetes. In Rwanda that killed 800,000 people, an article that came out this week, the massive number that are killed with hammers.

Shall we go after all blunt objects? Not to be topped, the former president of the National Rifle Association, Marion Hammer, goes for the Hail Mary — folks interested in gun control are equivalent to racists. Try to digest this – never mind she’s inaccurate in her attack on the proposed legislation, it’s just insane “logic” (Raw Story):

“Banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago,” Marion Hammer told host Ginny Simone. “But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It’s just bad politics.”

According to Media Matters, Hammer’s interview was in response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed ban, which is based on a firearm’s capacity, rather than its appearance. However, Simone encouraged Hammer’s inaccurate claim.

“They even admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it’s about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works,” the host said.

John Boehner’s office says funding defense of discrimination is necessary to “to protect our system of checks and balances” — to the tune of $1.7 million  dollars pickpocketed from the taxpayers during touch economic times.

These clowns have zero credibility — and prove it over and over. Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner:

The House of Representatives will continue to allow the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the 113th Congress, according to rules adopted by the House Thursday on a 228-196 vote.

The vote approving the new rules, done as one of the first actions of the new Congress, is the first time that the entire House has acted to approve the House’s defense of DOMA and comes as the Supreme Court is considering one of the challenges to the law. One Republican voted against the rules.

And why is it necessary? Please protect thy keyboards.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, however, downplayed the significance of the action, putting the blame on the Obama administration for its decision not to defend the law. We continue to believe the constitutionality of the law should be judged by the court, not the president unilaterally — and will provide the resources needed to protect our system of checks and balances,” Steel told BuzzFeed.

The response by advocates of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act came swiftly. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Republicans will take the extraordinary measure of including an authorization of their efforts to defend DOMA in the Rules of the House of Representatives and by doing so, continue to spend taxpayer funds, already adding up to $1.7 million, in their attempts to defend this shameful law in federal courts and the Supreme Court.

My favorite reaction came from out gay member of Congress, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO):

“House Republicans in this rule are seeking to authorize lawyer fees for a costly federal takeover of marriage that would single out legally married couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law…At least when Democrats spend money, we build roads and bridges, educate kids, provide health care. This Republican spending goes right into the pocket of lawyers. Big spending Republicans on day one spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a federal takeover of marriage and a lawyer stimulus — wrong foot to start off on.”

And the Log Cabin Republicans were incensed as well — LCR Interim Executive Director, Gregory T. Angelo:

At a time when sound fiscal policy should be front-and-center, diverting taxpayer funds to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act should not be a priority, period. But the beltway buzz about Congressional Rules ignores the big picture: this debate would be nonexistent if DOMA was repealed. Following a week in which Republican Congressmen Richard Hanna and Charlie Bass joined Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in support of the Respect for Marriage Act and DOMA repeal, we urge the Republican Congress to focus on our core tenets of small government and avoid engaging in distracting social issues that do nothing more than provide political fodder to the left.