White House Asked About Obama’s View on ‘Bestiality in the Military’ at Press Conference (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, December 6, 2011, 12:23 PM
The White House was asked whether or not Barack Obama supports bestiality in the military today. Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to answer.
Yahoo reported:
On Monday, press secretary Jay Carney fielded an unusual question from World Net Daily reporter Lester Kinsolving.
Via White House website:KINSOLVING: The Family Research Council and CNS News both reported a 93-to-7 U.S. Senate vote to approve a defense authorization bill that, quote, “includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals, or bestiality.” Does the commander-in-chief approve or disapprove of beastiality in our armed forces?
CARNEY: I don’t have any comment on–I don’t have any comment on that. Let me go to another question.
KINSOLVING: Does the President believe this will be approved by all animal support groups, such as–
CARNEY: Let’s get to something more serious.
ADVERTISEMENT
`
chuck in st paul commented:
Awww shucks, he just wants up to be more like his BFFs – the goat roping camel humpers.
iconoclast commented:
WND keeps it’s reputation for being nuts.
StrangernFiction commented:
Everybody should have the right to engage in sexual relations with a musty wet pelt.
StrangernFiction commented:
Awww shucks, he just wants up to be more like his BFFs – the goat roping camel humpers.
When in muzzy land do as the muzzies.
injunjoe commented:
baaaaa
Blacque Jacques Shellacque commented:
My response to that would have been, “Hah! Didn’t know what was in that bill, didja? I’ll bet that few others knew all of its contents as well. Just like the many other bills that came before it, right? RIGHT?“
StrangernFiction commented:
OT
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/06/obama_now_blames_the_internet_for_job_losses.html
See what you did Algore!
Conservative Ken commented:
What Baa Baa Barry does in the stable stays in the stable
∅cat commented:
Wasn’t there a OWS faction advocating for bestiality? Euclides doesn’t need an explanation for this subject!
Taqiyyotomist commented:
#3 SnF
Up twinkles.
shibuimi commented:
I commend WND for asking this question.
I hope the majority of people are repelled by the concept of beastiality, and the fact that the admin. does not have a comment is the same as tacit approval IMHO.
Who does this help most? The goat humping American musilm soldiers, as well the the perverts in the military.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
The big question here is: how the hell did a WND reporter even get in the room??!
Certainly that will be the last time. In fact, Mr. Kinsolving is probably being audited, stalked, and his home bugged as we speak.
MAJ Mike commented:
Well, THE WON is married to The Wookie.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
“must wet pelts”
That right there wins the freakin’ Comment of the Day, SnF. I’m crying over here. My sides hurt.
Eubulides commented:
#6
When laws are enacted broadly this sometimes happens when they are repealed. Similar situations in Denmark(accidentally legalized child pornography) and Rhode Island(legalized prostitution by mistake), come to mind.
WND, always keeping it classy.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
#13 MAJ Mike
aaaand, speaking of which.
Taqiyyotomist commented:
Eub. is right this time. Stopped clock is right sometimes — blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, all that.
Thing is, Eub, Carney should have had either that answer — or one of the roomful of people advising his earpiece should have fed it to him — or he should have answered in the definite negative.
But no. Two “no comment”s and a “let’s move on”.
Eubulides commented:
#11
By your own standard, if I were to come to your house and started asking a meandering question about raping members of your family and you slam the door in my face before I finish, your lack of a comment “is the same as tacit approval.”
sharky's machine commented:
#6…of course they know it’s in the bill. Article 125 of the code reads:
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
If they repeal all of article 125, which deals with “sodomy”, then the clause about animals gets deleted along with it.
Just shows that it is a poorly written part of the Code. Why would they ban certain sexual acts with the 1)OPPOSITE sex, 2)the same sex, and 3)with animals, all in the same paragraph? The way it’s written, getting a blowjob from your girlfriend is no different that having sex with a dog.
It takes a “special” kind of mind to assume that repealing this article means that the military now approves of sex with animals. Doing so would get you booted out on numerous other grounds.
Eubulides commented:
#17
Wasn’t one of the bullet points of electing Bush 43 to “restore the dignity of the office?” I am reminded of a quote attributed to both Johnson and Nixon (it involves a pig and election politics).
`