October 9, 2014, - 12:00 pm

Told Ya So: Conservative S. Ct Justice Said WHAT?! About Muslim Beards

By Debbie Schlussel

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito believes that not only should Muslims be allowed to grow beards in prison, but that jail guards should be required to “comb through them” if they are concerned about security. HUH? When even Alito subscribes to this absurdity, you know we’ve lost the Court–and America–irreparably. And that’s exactly the situation in the case of Gregory Holt a/k/a Abdul Maalik Muhammad, a convert to Islam who trained in Yemeni terrorist camps, who is in prison for life.

gregoryholtislamiccrescent.jpg

samuelalito

Don’t Worry, Be ISIS: Justice Alito Sides with Islam, Terrorists & Abdul Maalik Muhammad Against Prison Security

Several months ago, I warned conservatives not to cheer the Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby, contraception, and ObamaCare. I said it would be used in favor of Muslims to our detriment. And I was right. Holt a/k/a Muhammad used the language of the decision and its expansion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to his advantage at the U.S. Supreme Court, this week. And ALL of the Justices seemed to be on his side, so I predict they will be unanimous in allowing this dangerous cretin to grow his beard in prison and hide who-knows-what in it.

Yes, this Muslim prisoner’s beard is only a half-inch in length. But tomorrow, another Muslim will argue for an inch in length or three-quarters of an inch, long enough in which to hide a razor blade. In fact, a blade can be fashioned that is less than half an inch.

And what does Justice Alito say about that? Well, he’s got a “fabulous” solution: prison guards will have to comb through the beards to find out if there is anything in them. He says that the prisons can force the inmates to do the combing, but you know they won’t be thorough, just like we know O.J. Simpson faked that the gloves didn’t fit. So, the guards will end up being the ones doing the combing . . . if they want the prisons to remain secure. Yeah, that’s the ticket: force guards to become at once cosmetology school interns and put themselves in unnecessary proximity to dangerous Muslim prisoners in the process.

The justices turned to the question of whether Muslim prisoner Gregory Holt’s half-inch beard could threaten the security of the Arkansas prison system. No, most of the justices appeared to conclude — but they worried that the next cases might involve longer beards or other religious demands, with no end in sight. At what point, several of them said, should a state’s security interests surmount a prisoner’s religious rights? . . .







The issue before the court was Arkansas’ requirement that prisoners be clean-shaven, unless they have a medical reason for keeping a quarter-inch beard. While more than 40 state prison systems allow beards in general, Holt had agreed to keep his to a half-inch — virtually negating the chance he could hide weapons or contraband in it, and making it harder for him to change his appearance by shaving.

A law passed by Congress in 2000 was intended to protect prisoners’ religious rights, much like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was meant to protect religious freedom in general. That law was cited by the court in June when it allowed family-owned corporations with religious objections to be exempted from providing health insurance for contraceptives.

The justices appeared to agree that the law regarding prisoners does work in Holt’s favor. Several also belittled the state’s stated fears: that an escaped prisoner could hide a weapon or contraband in his beard, and change his appearance after an escape by shaving. “Not one example has ever been found of anybody hiding anything in his beard,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. And Justice Samuel Alito suggested that prison officials could just force inmates to comb through their beards. “Anything else you think can be hidden in a half-inch beard, a tiny revolver, it will fall out,” Alito said.

Uh, not necessarily. We’re not talking guns. A beard can hide razors, tiny blades and sharp objects, and even a SIM card for a cell phone. And, again, the inmates won’t do an adequate combing, so the guards will have to do it. And there’s another security concern:

Arkansas Deputy Attorney General David Curran noted that the state prison system houses inmates in barracks and employs them on maintenance jobs outside prison grounds, where they might engage in mischief. “We’re not like California. We’re not like New York. They have cell-block housing,” Curran said. “A beard is one of the quickest and easiest ways to change one’s appearance.” University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, representing Holt, admitted prisons could face “some teeny, tiny risk” because of prisoners’ beards.

Teeny, tiny? Not exactly. And, you know what’s amazing? That one of the most liberal Justices on the bench is the only one who seems to get it.

Other justices said the state deserves some deference in setting security policies. Rather than “teeny-tiny,” Justice Elena Kagan suggested, the risk could be “measurable, although small.” And she noted that taxpayers’ costs rise if prisons take on extra security risks.

Wow, amazing. She has more of a brain on this than Alito. (A broken clock still has a better record of being correct though.)

Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, convinced the court to hear his case with a 15-page, handwritten petition citing his desire to keep a beard as part of his Muslim faith. His grievance stems from the Arkansas Department of Corrections rule prohibiting beards unless medically required. “This is a matter of grave importance, pitting the rights of Muslim inmates against a system that is hostile to these views,” he wrote in his petition. “It can affect thousands of inmates and is creating unnecessary attention between Muslims and their keepers.”

Um, the system is “hostile” to Islam? Really? Here’s a tip: prison systems all over the country bend over backward–and forward–to Muslims. That’s why it’s the best location for converting criminals to the religion and radicalizing them. It’s also why the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman, was able to recruit jihadists in Spain . . . from his Supermax prison cell! Uh, no, the prison system ain’t hostile to Islam. It’s a petri dish for it. The religion spreads and dominates like Ebola there.

Prison officials call Holt “a Yemen-trained Muslim fundamentalist” who threatened to kidnap and harm President George W. Bush’s daughters. He is serving a life sentence as a habitual offender for aggravated residential burglary and domestic battery after stabbing a former girlfriend in the neck and chest.

Both the federal district and appeals courts ruled against Holt, even though a magistrate who heard testimony said it was “almost preposterous” to think he could hide a weapon in his beard. The judges reasoned that Holt had been granted several other religious concessions, such as a prayer rug, a special diet and holiday observances, and they deferred to the state’s judgment about its security needs.

The federal government and 16 religious and law enforcement groups have lined up behind Holt. The Justice Department cited what it called the state’s “exaggerated fears or mere speculation” about security. Eighteen states backed Arkansas in the case.

Figures that Obama and Eric Holder are on this cretin’s side, but which idiotic law enforcement groups are? I’ll look into it and let you know.

Bleepin’ morons!

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email






53 Responses

” I warned conservatives not to cheer the Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby, contraception, and ObamaCare. I said it would be used in favor of Muslims to our detriment.”

Yep. Great call, Debbie.

DS_ROCKS! on October 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

Notice how it’s so-called Conservatives that always bend for the Libtard ideology and you’d see Santa Claus in July before you’d see a Libtard using common sense and agreeing with a Conservative ideology. At this point in the game, I think it’s the so-called Conservatives who need to wake up to this fact because everything is being taken from us hook, line and sinker while the stealth Libtard plan is working oh-so-nicely. For decades now. Some Conservatives are no better than clueless Black American dupes who think the Democrat party is their friend.

I did not get to see DS’ column but I knew if I was thinking that she was certainly thinking that in a more learned way. Every time I wanna celebrate religious freedom I can’t help but wonder how it will aid Moooooslims. Islam is NOT even a religion. But good luck in making most believe that. It’s demoralizing because that is where they got us over a barrel.

It’s not looking good. 13 years after 9-11 and they have gained so much ground. In double-time since the reign of Obama-Putin.

@@Skunky on October 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm

Yes big surprise the supreme court is lost. The minds behind the constitution knew that if this situation ever materialized America would be already be in deep trouble. That’s why they gave the court so much power.
The only question left now is how much good judgement remains in the hands of the American people.

japple on October 9, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    “That’s why they gave the court so much power.”

    -japple

    japple, the founders did not give the Supreme Court such power. That sorry state of affairs began early on with Marbury v. Madison (1803), which introduced the novel concept of “judicial review” of duly passed law based on the SC’s reading of the Constitution. Prior to that, the Court and the lower courts created could handle a conflict of laws or the misapplication of law, but could not claim High Constitutional Authority.

    The branches were supposed to be “co-equal” in theory, though the founders thought that the Court would in fact be the weakest.

    Gingrich says many stupid things, but his rejection of judicial supremacy is right on. It would be best if a future legislature and president took most issue areas away from the Court’s appellate jurisdiction–which is fully constitutional, by the way:

    “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Article III, Section 2, Clause 2

    skzion on October 10, 2014 at 1:43 pm

      Err… SK, I am kind of drunk but appreciate your response.

      Just answer me this is the Supreme court not called “Supreme” for a reason?
      Don’t they get to decide ultimately what is and what is not constitutional?
      Now, as to the “judicial review” doesn’t that primarily revolve around whether laws passed by states are or are not constitutional.
      You’ll have to forgive me if I’m off base here but in for a penny in for a pound.
      Ultimately the system fails if individuals do not possess virtue.
      It doesn’t matter what laws you pass to ensure individual rights.
      In fact the fewer laws the better.

      japple on October 10, 2014 at 9:04 pm

        PWD is probably not a good idea but it’s way less annoying at least for me than hit and run selective responding.

        japple on October 11, 2014 at 1:12 pm

        Might ask Debbie about this, but my understanding was that Justice Marshall took much power for himself.

        Anyhow, I worked as a prison psychiatrist in Alabama and New Mexico. The judicial system and the ACLU were major pains in the tuchus. Then these clowns on the SC wonder why it is so difficult to attract physicians to work in the prison system.

        Continuous siding with psychopaths may be the answer, you think? Thanks, Debbie, for being pro-MD, pro-correctional officer, and pro-common sense.

        Occam's Tool on October 11, 2014 at 11:46 pm

      In other words the constitution is all encompassing no matter what Newt Gingrich may or may not have said.

      japple on October 10, 2014 at 9:08 pm

      Just to come back to this it’s the reason you may or may not have noticed constitutions are not worth the paper they’re printed on in the majority of countries where they’re printed.

      japple on October 10, 2014 at 9:29 pm

      OK, apologies for posting when drunk(pwd) but the point is not that the Supreme Court is more powerful today than it was yesterday.
      That the drafters of the constitution didn’t envisage the court playing the role to the extent it does today also wasn’t the point.
      The only point is that what they envisaged most was scope creep in government. They tried to safe guard against it by balancing branches against one another.

      Under the constitution “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;”

      Also if you weren’t apparently so determined to always interpret my observations as idiotic you might have noticed that Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a supreme court decision.
      That’s the first thing I would have noticed because it pertains precisely to the issue of scope creep.

      japple on October 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm

      As far as virtue is concerned that is something that individuals can possess in greater or lesser extent in many areas.
      In this case virtue is a measure of self restraint.

      japple on October 11, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      To summarize again because probably I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was.
      Marbury vs. Madison is simply a detail. Once you have court deciding issues of constitutionality there is going to be a natural tendency to broaden the issues upon which they decide.

      So yes the court does involve itself more broadly than before but that is not primarily why they’re powerful. They were always inherently powerful because to a certain extent they assume the role of disinterested arbiters with regard to the constitution.

      That is always a particularly powerful position to be in especially when you’re deciding matters of your own jurisdiction i.e. Marbury vs. Madison.

      So to say that the people that drafted the constitution didn’t want the current state of affairs is to miss the point.
      No they didn’t but what was their ultimate safeguard against it?
      Ultimately only Judicial integrity.

      japple on October 11, 2014 at 4:16 pm

        Also if you weren’t apparently so determined to always interpret my observations as idiotic….

        Nothing bores me more than self-pity induced whining like this. Debbie told me a long time ago that you were not Frankz, but you sound a lot like him.

        Under the constitution “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;”

        Yes, but that does not mean that the SC is itself the sole interpreter of the constitution. Further, under the principle of legal construction that no part of a law can be read such that it is “nugatory,” the ability of the legislature to restrict jurisdiction–which is clearly spelled out–must have some application. Furthermore, only a Supreme Court is even guaranteed under the constitution, and only its original jurisdiction is specified. There is no necessity for the federal court system as it now exists. ALL of it could be abolished except for the SC.

        “Marbury vs. Madison is simply a detail. Once you have court deciding issues of constitutionality there is going to be a natural tendency to broaden the issues upon which they decide.

        Exactly, but M v. M was the case that solidified that the SC (and no other branch, including the executive in that case) assessed the issue of constitutionality.

        “They were always inherently powerful because to a certain extent they assume the role of disinterested arbiters with regard to the constitution.”

        But as I said, their role as final, disinterested arbiters is a creation. It was many decades (forgot how many) M v. M until the SC actually tried this again.

        “That is always a particularly powerful position to be in especially when you’re deciding matters of your own jurisdiction i.e. Marbury vs. Madison.”

        Actually, in M v. M, the SC ruled that its original juristictin could not be enlarged. However, the SC does not have the power to decide its appellate jurisdiction.

        “So to say that the people that drafted the constitution didn’t want the current state of affairs is to miss the point.
        No they didn’t but what was their ultimate safeguard against it?
        Ultimately only Judicial integrity.”

        No. The SC had no army, and that was the ultimate constraint on its behavior. It had no control over its own appellate jurisdiction, either. Judicial misconduct at lower levels was considered a good reason for a lynching (see Jefferson).

        skzion on October 14, 2014 at 5:08 pm

          Skzion you’re a smart and good guy but because of that a few things bother me about you.
          1)
          If you wanted to know if I was frankz all you had to do was ask. Guess you haven’t even figured that out by now.
          2)
          You’ve taken this self pity line previously and while I admit sometimes it’s a chore dealing with your preconceptions it’s not so bad yet that I do it out of desperation or self pity.
          3)
          You always take the most literal and nonsensical interpretation of anything I write. I’m talking broadly, you want to get specific. Fine, but please don’t start off assuming I’m labouring under specific misconceptions I don’t have by default every darn time.

          “SC is itself the sole interpreter of the constitution” – Never said they were.
          However if the SC rules a law unconstitutional or constitutional so it is. The only question as far as understand it is what they should review.

          “Actually, in M v. M, the SC ruled that its original juristiction” – Ha, ha very funny. You’d make an excellent lawyer but excluding Debbie there are too damn many already.
          The SC didn’t need to enlarge their original jurisdiction. Of course how could they ever do that? No, what you do in that kind of situation is decide what your original jurisdiction was. And that’s just what they did.

          “No. The SC had no army, and that was the ultimate constraint on its behavior.” –
          They didn’t have any jailers and curfew either. This is your weakest point.

          I said they were a powerful branch of government not all powerful and certainly not a mini state unto themselves. This is not the proposition.
          The SC will never be all powerful. The danger is that they are essentially co-opted by another branch eventually.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:44 pm

          Having trouble getting response through.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:45 pm

          “SC is itself the sole interpreter of the constitution” – Never said they were.
          However if the SC rules a law unconstitutional or constitutional so it is. The only question as far as understand it is what they should review.

          “Actually, in M v. M, the SC ruled that its original juristiction” – Ha, ha very funny. You’d make an excellent lawyer but excluding Debbie there are too damn many already.
          The SC didn’t need to enlarge their original jurisdiction. Of course how could they ever do that? No, what you do in that kind of situation is decide what your original jurisdiction was. And that’s just what they did.

          “No. The SC had no army, and that was the ultimate constraint on its behavior.” –
          They didn’t have any jailers and curfew either. This is your weakest point.

          I said they were a powerful branch of government not all powerful and certainly not a mini state unto themselves. This is not the proposition.
          The SC will never be all powerful. The danger is that they are essentially co-opted by another branch eventually.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:51 pm

          Skzion you’re a smart and good guy but because of that a few things bother me about you.

          – If you wanted to know if I was frankz all you had to do was ask. Guess you haven’t even figured that out by now.

          – You’ve taken this self pity line previously and while I admit sometimes it’s a chore dealing with your preconceptions it’s not so bad yet that I do it out of desperation or self pity.

          – You always take the most literal and nonsensical interpretation of anything I write. I’m talking broadly, you want to get specific. Fine, but please don’t start off assuming I’m labouring under specific misconceptions I don’t have by default every darn time.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:52 pm

          Skzion you’re a smart and good guy but because of that a few things bother me about you.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:54 pm

          If you wanted to know who I was all you had to do was ask. Guess you haven’t even figured that out by now.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:56 pm

          Also, you are not so amazingly bright, knowledgeable and your arguments so devastating that this is a plaintive appeal although I’m starting to realize that may be hard for you to believe.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm

          many, many missing posts, too tired now to rectify

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 6:11 pm

          OK, japple, who are you?

          skzion on October 15, 2014 at 6:41 pm

        Alright, japple, I think this will be the last round, in particular because web site issues are making this an unnecessary pain.

        You say, “SC is itself the sole interpreter of the constitution” – Never said they were.
        However if the SC rules a law unconstitutional or constitutional so it is. The only question as far as understand it is what they should review.

        Now, if the SC makes a constitutional ruling, and it is NOT the sole interpreter, how can one then conclude that its finding concludes the matter (“so it is”)? I’m happy to change my wording to “final interpreter” instead of “sole interpreter,” but my previous comment would still apply: the SC need not ever have been allowed to claim a “final interpreter” role even over its area of original jurisdiction.

        “No, what you do in that kind of situation is decide what your original jurisdiction was. And that’s just what they did.

        Again, the point was that the SC claimed by implication in M v. M to be final interpreters of the constitution. The nice move in this case was to reduce court power in the short term but increase it tremendously in the long term.

        “No. The SC had no army, and that was the ultimate constraint on its behavior.” –
        They didn’t have any jailers and curfew either. This is your weakest point.

        Dude, you persist in seeing politics through the lens of the 21st century. Since I remembered specifically an argument from the Federalist about the court lacking a military or control over the purse and jurisdiction, I commented about it. I’ve now searched for this. Here is one example.

        Federalist, No. 78 (Hamilton)

        in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

        Now Hamilton advocated that because of this weakness, the SC should be able to overrule the other branches on constitutional grounds. However–and tellingly–this was never codified in the constitution. In other words, it was a point that was discussed and NOT ratified.

        Finally, though, japple, I agree with you about the historical trajectory of SC power. I just don’t agree that this was intended by the final agreed upon version of the constitution as written. If you’ll recall, that was precisely the point I was trying to dispute at the beginning. I think it’s a bad idea to cloak the status quo in the garb of Founder’s intent, even if one can’t doing anything about the status quo.

        skzion on October 15, 2014 at 7:09 pm

          I didn’t mean to imply that the current trajectory was intended by the final version of the constitution simply that I believe many were aware of the potential and that to a certain extent it may have been unavoidable.
          Those who drafted it put a framework in place not a roadmap or a 5 year plan.
          Anyway, seem to be arguing at cross purposes here.

          japple on October 16, 2014 at 4:48 pm

          So who are you, japple?

          skzion on October 17, 2014 at 9:54 am

          SK, who do you think I am? Do you need everything spelled out?
          And when it is how can you trust it?

          japple on October 18, 2014 at 10:43 pm

          School’s out buddy

          japple on October 18, 2014 at 10:45 pm

          Hey buddy, you said that all I had to do was ask:

          If you wanted to know who I was all you had to do was ask. Guess you haven’t even figured that out by now.

          japple on October 15, 2014 at 5:56 pm”

          C’mon, be fair.

          skzion on October 18, 2014 at 11:33 pm

Yo whack jew. I heard you like smockin some pot with your daddy in starbucks. Let me say something. Even though you like to, do not, and I repeat, DO NOT POST AFTER HANGOVERS. Stop being an american booty scratcher, ok? Want to marry a muslim, then ask. but damn they aint gonna marry a booty scratcher. I mean, you’re dumb, ugly, and WHACK BOOTY SCRATCHER. I hope you stayed in school kid. I hope, stupid whack jack crack black smack hack slack kid.

YOUR FAT MOM on October 9, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Uhhhhhhh, I’m smoking pot all alone at a friend’s house in Secaucus, NJ, and I don’t like Charbucks. They sell stale, over roasted, mass produced coffee, and their staff is a bit too theatrical, and sometimes inattentive and disrespectful for my taste.

    But I can still sniff out trolls. What happens when someone clicks on your user name, since I noticed it will lead one somewhere. Like where? To a virus page, perhaps? Or some other disease, like eBola? No, not Ebola, but an eBola for the computer? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    Alfredo from Puerto Rico on October 9, 2014 at 10:46 pm

      I don’t touch the wacky tobaccy myself but hope you had a good time chillaxing Alfredo.

      japple on October 15, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Stick to picking your nose kid.

    japple on October 11, 2014 at 4:25 pm

Where does this religious “right” come from? Does the Koran state that males must keep a beard. Same goes with the hijab on women where I’ve heard Muslim scholars state that there is nothing in the Koran that requires this. Is it enough for someone to state this as their religious or does it have to be vetted? If not any nut job can state anything as their religious belief and seek accommodation. Maybe someone will claim that their “religion” requires them to wear a colander on their head.

Mitch on October 9, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    Mitch- never forget there is not enough information in the koran for anyone to become a mohammedan (correct term) and the only way is by emulating the behaviour of the best example for mankind — the master of sadism,murder thievery,woman hater,child lover and general pestilence on the face of the earth
    —– mohammed himself

    Tommy S on October 10, 2014 at 8:27 am

I am not surprised. The U.S. Supreme Court that we have now is not terribly conservative, despite media claims to the contrary. Its recent decisions on the Affordable Care Act and Gay Marriage should have put to bed such claims.

Worry on October 9, 2014 at 8:58 pm

Having a beard and being a muzzie is not akin to a Rasta having dreadlocks. There is no reason or anything to support that argument that the muzzies just won. Where did Alito pull this out of?

MrBigBrain on October 10, 2014 at 7:44 am

Lats see — allowing a beard,prayer rug & halal food because of “religious observance”

What greater admission from the state that islam is a cult of violence and should be supported.

now I wonder haow they would feel about providing stones for ablutions — washable and saves toilet roll

sahih bukhari
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 163:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If anyone of you performs ablution he should put water in his nose and then blow it out and whoever cleans his private parts with stones should do so with odd numbers

Tommy S on October 10, 2014 at 8:12 am

    A very, very important point is to note that the reason prisoners convert to Islam is that it requires NO change in outlook or behavior; in fact, it provides an underlying rationale to BE a better psychopath.

    Occam's Tool on October 11, 2014 at 11:49 pm

The Extreme Court quietly subverts again.

Victoryman on October 10, 2014 at 10:59 am

An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a
friend who was doing a little research on this. And he actually
ordered me dinner because I found it for him…
lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
But yeah, thanx for spending some time to talk about this topic
here on your web site.

web site on October 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Fastidious replies in return of this matter with firm arguments and explaining everything on the topic of that.

penis curvature on October 10, 2014 at 5:01 pm

Did they say how much force could be used to pull it through that rat’s nest; or how many teeth the comb should be limited? Or, do they want to waste more time pondering that at a later date?

nadie on October 10, 2014 at 7:47 pm

Bush I and Bush II gave us some real winners for the Supreme Court, didn’t they. Sorry liberal basts posing as conservatives!

POd on October 11, 2014 at 1:58 pm

A typical christian dumbass forgetting to read the other authenticated Islamic info Debbie,you’re an idiot who probably uses CNN for facts. Go to hell if you want, because i see many Muslims who tell me hwhat you say is bull. Even though people might not believe in Jesus as god, no need to be butthurt. Stupid fools if Isis kills disbelievers they should’ve went to you, but they didn’t. Like your momma said, dumb american white girl booty scratcher

my butt on October 11, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    You see many Muslims, they see one sucker coming up to them.

    japple on October 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm

First, get bent “my butt.” Anyway, your man, Obama strikes again! Much as GWB tried to stay on the good side of the Saudis (which also helped Israel), GW doesn’t hold a candle, not a trace, compared to what O’ has and is doing for Islam and Muslims. But, you won’t pay attention.

http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-tracking-muslims-candidates-military-pentagon-positions/

its all GWBs fault on October 11, 2014 at 2:59 pm

“Combing through” a muslim’s beard is like a nauseating, alternate-world princess party.

DS_ROCKS! on October 13, 2014 at 1:15 pm

There is no need to sit and wonder any far more time.
But who would want location an extender on your penis and stretch
it? You want to lose weight so again you pop a male enhancement pill.
The most important thing you will to know before you will consider penis male enlargement is whether you really need a bigger penis.

Penis pumps or vacuum pumps – they are broken.
So be careful and complete your research research.

exercise the penis on November 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field