Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

64Obama promotes sodomy and beastiality

Expand Messages
  • scabby2444
    Feb 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Sheep and Goats are Safer Now
      Submitted by may on December 14, 2011 - 1:48am
      On Monday the leaders of both the House and Senate prevented the repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Repeal would have given legal protection to those in the military who would engage in sodomy with men, women, or animals.

      The Obama Administration has been pushing for the legalization of sodomy and bestiality along with gay marriages and open homosexuality in our military. Perhaps the Iraqis wanted the US military out of Iraq because they were fearful of the additional dangers our future military presence might pose to their men, sheep, and goats?

      Groups as politically diverse as the Family Research Council and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) joined together to oppose the legalization of sodomy and bestiality in our military. PETA and others were upset when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney laughingly dismissed concerns about the legalization of sodomy and bestiality by members of the US military.

      In a letter to Carney, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk told the White House spokesman that the animal rights group was upset that Carney laughingly dismissed a reporter's question asking about the commander-in-chief's position on bestiality.

      PETA President Ingrid Newkirk sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta,

      December 5, 2011

      The Honorable Leon Panetta

      Secretary of Defense

      United States Department of Defense

      1000 Defense Pentagon

      Washington, DC 20301-1000

      Dear Mr. Secretary:

      An emergency exists, and we ask for your immediate intervention. PETA is being inundated with complaints regarding the inadvertent removal of an anti-bestiality provision from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, stripping away what minimal protection the UCMJ afforded "non-public" (i.e., non-service) animals. This change means that bestiality charges can now be filed only at the discretion of superior officers—under a catch-all provision of the UCMJ prohibiting behavior unbecoming a service member.

      As you no doubt know, mental-health professionals and law-enforcement agencies consider cruelty to animals a red flag in the psychiatric repertoire of antisocial and sociopathic behavior. The American Psychiatric Association identifies all forms of animal abuse as diagnostic criteria for conduct disorders, and the FBI uses reports of animal abuse in analyzing the threat potential of suspected and known criminals. Further, a 2002 study by Jory, Flemming, and Burton shows that 96 percent of offenders who had engaged in bestiality also admitted to sexual assaults on humans. Animal abuse is very much an issue of community safety, and the degree to which we take these crimes seriously can be measured by the strength of our laws.

      On behalf of our millions of U.S. members, as well as those overseas where our military also serves, we ask that you please act immediately to establish a policy of zero tolerance for cruelty to animals by adding a section to the UCMJ prohibiting cruelty—including bestiality—to non-public animals.

      Our office stands ready to assist you in any way possible. May we hear from you soon?

      Very truly yours,

      Ingrid Newkirk, President

      Once Congress was made aware of the fact that "The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012," contained a provision to legalize sodomy and bestiality, many in both the House and Senate worked together to retain ARTICLE 125. As a result, the Conference Report released Monday stated, "UCMJ ARTICLE 125 PROHIBITION ON SODOMY – Retains current prohibition on sodomy."

      The provisions of "ARTICLE 125—SODOMY" of the "Punitive Articles of the UCMJ" are quite specific and the punishments quite severe for those found to be guilty of sodomy. We must ask with great seriousness and concern why a Commander in Chief would ever want Article 125 negated or even weakened in any way?