Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 10/09/2007 View Mon 10/08/2007 View Sun 10/07/2007 View Sat 10/06/2007 View Fri 10/05/2007 View Thu 10/04/2007 View Wed 10/03/2007
1
2007-10-09 Home Front: Culture Wars
A Constitutional Amendment to Ban Islam in America
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Zenster 2007-10-09 15:25|| || Front Page|| [5 views ]  Top
 File under: Global Jihad 

#1 Now there is something I could get behind and support.
Posted by JohnQC 2007-10-09 16:14||   2007-10-09 16:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Oh good Lord, Zen. This is just plain idiotic.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2007-10-09 16:42||   2007-10-09 16:42|| Front Page Top

#3 It'll never fly but it is fun to run read.
Posted by JohnQC 2007-10-09 17:09||   2007-10-09 17:09|| Front Page Top

#4 What Dr. Steve said.

We're at war with fascistic Wahabbism and its de facto allies in Turtle Bay, Hollywood, Tehran, and certain other places (*cough* Office-Of-Rep-John-Murtha-D-PA *cough*), but we are not at war with all Moslems--nor should we be. There are a lot of Moslems out there in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places who are on our side--at far more direct personal risk on a daily basis than most of us here in the 'Burg have ever faced, combat veterans excepted. (My knee-jerk Dem relatives may give me guff for being a Republican, but I don't have to worry about being shot for "collaboration with the occupiers" and roadside IEDs are rare in Northeast Ohio.)

This guy is standing with us. So's this fellow, and this one, and all the people Michael Yon talks about here.

Speaking as a good old Irish Catholic boy from Ohio who does not accept the truth claims of Islam and has no intention of accepting dhimmitude, I'd cheerfully trade three Nancy Pelosis and a Michael Moore for one Mohammed Atef. Wouldn't you, Zen?
Posted by Mike 2007-10-09 17:31||   2007-10-09 17:31|| Front Page Top

#5 Perhaps the Dhimmis here would feel free to explain how Islam itself is on our side.
Posted by Icerigger 2007-10-09 17:53||   2007-10-09 17:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Oh good Lord, Zen. This is just plain idiotic.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. During WWII pro-Nazi sympathies didn't go over too well here in America. Nor should current Islamic agitation for sedition and treason either. As Fjordman duely notes, it's time to begin making the West Islam-unfriendly. To wit:
But above all, the West, and indeed the non-Muslim world, should make our countries Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy of containment of Dar al-Islam. This is the most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims.

The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.
[emphasis added]

I don't know what you think of Fjordman, Steve White, but I have found him to be a consistently well-versed and knowledgable writer on all issues Islamic. Feel free to post your own opinion of the man.

Islam desperately needs an unmistakable object lesson in reciprocity. Westerners are totally unwelcome in their lands save only to make Muslims incredibly wealthy by installing and operating technology Islamic cultures wouldn't have invented for another several centuries. We are idiots to quietly accept such a one-way street. Islam uses it against us at every turn with death and destruction being our reward.

A final question for you, Steve White. If this proposal is—as you say—so "idiotic", then it is safe to state that you see something of value in Islam. Please feel free to post here what it is that you find of worth or redeeming value about Islam. I'm intensely curious and confident that others are as well. As Icerigger so astutely noted:

... feel free to explain how Islam itself is on our side.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 18:21||   2007-10-09 18:21|| Front Page Top

#7 I'd cheerfully trade three Nancy Pelosis and a Michael Moore for one Mohammed Atef. Wouldn't you, Zen?

A difficult proposition at best. Fortunately, Atef is dead. My dislike for all of them is equal. If there really were three Nancy Pelosis, then I'd have to agree with you. This one democrat moron is far more dangerous than Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell combined unless—of course—one of the latter two happened to fall upon you.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 18:39||   2007-10-09 18:39|| Front Page Top

#8 There may be a change of attitude after the first American city is nuked.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-09 18:49||   2007-10-09 18:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Such an amendment will never happen. Some of the provisions listed below may well pass into law, such as criminalizing actions supporting and advocating jihadism, Sharia and suchlike, making the properties where it takes place subject to seizure and forfeit, and the persons engaging in such behaviour subject to deportation. Others such as proselytizing of any sort, and immigration from terror-supporting countries likely will become de facto forbidden. Especially should the rate of attempted and successful terror incidents increase here at home, but there will be no amendment because
1) it takes the better part of a decade to organize these days, and
2) it isn't necessary to accomplish the key items that would change the national environment, just as a year full of highly publicized ICE raids has resulted in Canada having an illegal Mexican immigrant problem flowing across their southern border at the same time that American farmers are complaining they can't find stoop labour to harvest the crops.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-09 18:53||   2007-10-09 18:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Oh good Lord, Zen. This is just plain idiotic.

oH NO Dr. White my Zenster is the smartest troll in America!
Posted by Cindy Sheehan 2007-10-09 19:23||   2007-10-09 19:23|| Front Page Top

#11 Ooooh, look! An insulting anonymous post. What courage, what bravery, what intellectual honesty. These faceless attacks always demonstrate the ne plus ultra in debating skills. Oh well, there's no accounting for taste stupidity.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 19:32||   2007-10-09 19:32|| Front Page Top

#12 It will be interesting to see whether our bred-in-the-bone liberalism will ever allow us to take the steps necessary to protect ourselves from militant Islam. Islam will settle down if it feels itself defeated. Like after Lepanto and Vienna, or after the British wiped out the Mahdis in Sudan.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution, but Shari'a is not a religion that can be privatized as Christianity has been. Allowing militant (true) Islam here will ensure conflict.
Posted by SR-71">SR-71  2007-10-09 19:35||   2007-10-09 19:35|| Front Page Top

#13 As ever, a well-balanced and well-thought out post from our dear trailing wife. Thank you for actually bringing something to the table. Unlike others.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 19:35||   2007-10-09 19:35|| Front Page Top

#14 well, I'll disappoint you as well. Barring a nuking of an American city, this won't even BEGIN to happen.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-09 20:12||   2007-10-09 20:12|| Front Page Top

#15 We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

Note that Fjordman's language is all behavioral - it prohibits specific behaviors. It's those behaviors and others like them that create danger to us and our way of life.

Trying to legislate correct thinking is a bit Big Brother for my taste. And as I recall, there's some pesky language in the Constitution to the effect
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....


Ancestors of mine on one side of my family arrived here before our Revolution on precisely those grounds. It seems the established religious and civic authorities found their form of Protestantism quite subversive apart from any acts actually committed.

Not gonna fly. NS is right that if a US city is nuked **in ways that are obviously tied to Islam** some people will want to expel all Muslims. That's a long way from ammending the Constitution to prohibit what 1.5 billion people view as a religion, tho.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-09 20:16||   2007-10-09 20:16|| Front Page Top

#16 I agree that a constitutional amendment to this effect is impractical. However, there are other remedies that may be just as effective, though they have fallen into disfavor in recent years.

1) Loyalty oaths. These would also impact other religions that refuse to swear loyalty to the United States, such as 7th Day Adventists.

2) Licensing of religious schools, along with the requirement that students meet secular standards on periodic evaluations.

3) That all religious court decisions must be affirmed by a secular court to insure compliance with secular law.

4) Strict interpretation of non-discrimination statutes, which would prohibit discrimination based on sex or against the handicapped with their guide animals.

5) Conversely, permitting employers to fire employees for non-compliance on religious grounds, such as handling pork or alcohol.

6) Enlargement of hate crimes laws to include the provision of hate literature, like the Koran.
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-10-09 20:19||   2007-10-09 20:19|| Front Page Top

#17 Barring a nuking of an American city, this won't even BEGIN to happen

I would say you agree with Zenster 100%.
Posted by gromgoru 2007-10-09 20:21||   2007-10-09 20:21|| Front Page Top

#18 lotp, with all due respect: What part of Article I do you not understand?

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
[emphasis added]

Regardless of its current legal definition, do you continue to maintain that Islam is, indeed, a true religion and not a political ideology? Please answer this one central question first so that we can all save a lot of ensuing effort.

If, by any chance, you manage to concur, then how does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." apply in this case?

It seems the established religious and civic authorities found their form of Protestantism quite subversive apart from any acts actually committed.

Are you so blithe as to not recognize how Protestants aren't flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers?

NS is right that if a US city is nuked **in ways that are obviously tied to Islam** some people will want to expel all Muslims.

Do you maintain that there is any other significant probability of an American city being subjected to a one-off nuclear attack that will not be some 99.99% likely related to Islamic terrorism?

That's a long way from ammending the Constitution to prohibit what 1.5 billion people view as a religion, tho.

Pardon my frank terminology but 1.5 TRILLION flies eat shit. Does that make it an acceptable behavior for humans? And, yes, Islam demands such insectoid behavior—i.e., hive mind—from its adherents that I fully believe the comparison stands on its own merits. Or do you continue to maintain that Islam is a true religion? If so, please elaborate—as Dr. White has seemed to demure from—by expanding upon whatever worthy or redeeming features Islam presents to our world.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 20:36||   2007-10-09 20:36|| Front Page Top

#19 I would say you agree with Zenster 100%.

Thank you very much, Gr0mgoru. I would hope that my only significant difference of opinion with Frank deals with issues about pre-emption. It is a source of true gratification that I have no doubt about any of our individual dedication to American ideals.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 20:45||   2007-10-09 20:45|| Front Page Top

#20 I just noticed I made an incredibly boneheaded spelling error.

The guy I wanted to refer to was Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief. With that correction, my original comment stands: I'd cheerfully trade three Nancy Pelosis and a Michael Moore for a man like him.

Your response, sir?
Posted by Mike 2007-10-09 20:45||   2007-10-09 20:45|| Front Page Top

#21 Regardless of its current legal definition, do you continue to maintain that Islam is, indeed, a true religion and not a political ideology?

False dichotomy.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-09 20:53||   2007-10-09 20:53|| Front Page Top

#22 'moose, I invite you to comment upon the observation of how voiding Islam's qualification as an exempt "religion" would obviate a majority of your concerns.

Mike, ya gotta be kidding me!?! Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief is worth more than—and I'll gladly exaggerate here a bit but not by much—the entire democratic party combined. Happy? I'll needlessly thank you for having corrected an obviously egregious error.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 20:55||   2007-10-09 20:55|| Front Page Top

#23 False dichotomy.

Please explain your objections.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 20:57||   2007-10-09 20:57|| Front Page Top

#24 Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief is worth more than . . . the entire democratic party combined.

Well, we agree on one thing, anyway.
Posted by Mike 2007-10-09 21:03||   2007-10-09 21:03|| Front Page Top

#25 What's to explain? Your question assumes that religion and political 'ideology' are inherently different categories that cannot overlap.

A lot of people would disagree - including western Christians for most of the Middle Ages.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-09 21:04||   2007-10-09 21:04|| Front Page Top

#26 Mike, as a measure of—what I considered to be—mutual respect, I hope you appreciate the fact that I do not object to your altering the context of my statement. I mean this quite sincerely.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 21:08||   2007-10-09 21:08|| Front Page Top

#27 What's to explain? Your question assumes that religion and political 'ideology' are inherently different categories that cannot overlap.

Bullshit. I fully well know that thay have, indeed, overlapped in times past. It just so happens that the convergence of nuclear technology, the Internet and high Muslim population counts militate against Western civilization's survival.

Do you dispute this? Do you continue to maintain that Islam is a worthy Religion? You have skirted answering this question. IS ISLAM A VALID RELIGION?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 21:13||   2007-10-09 21:13|| Front Page Top

#28 Even though I despise Islam and think it need some serious reformation or be destroyed, I can't get behind this. I think it does go against the freedom of religion.

However, that being said, I would fully support laws stating that "Death to America" or other death of non-muzzies preaching should be construed as planning of murder, sedition and the properties and individuals seized and imprisoned. Make no mistake, we are at war and need to act like it. You want to practice Islam, fine. You start wanting to seek the death of non-muzzies or spout the jihad nonsense, you get imprisoned and/or deported. End. Of. Fucking. Story.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-10-09 21:17||   2007-10-09 21:17|| Front Page Top

#29 Your question assumes that religion and political 'ideology' are inherently different categories that cannot overlap.

A lot of people would disagree - including western Christians for most of the Middle Ages.

I think it is not a false dichotomy though there can obviously be overlap. Jesus said Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's. Not every Christian has perfectly followed Christ, but that does not invalidate or render inapplicable what He taught.

Whereas Islam, from the outset, was intended to be both a political and spiritual system, fully integrated.

Jesus rode at the head of no armed force, besieged no cities, conducted no massacres or reigns of terror nor did he encourage others to do so. Mo did. That is the irreconcilable dichotomy, not what their imperfect followers did in their names.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-09 21:25||   2007-10-09 21:25|| Front Page Top

#30 Regarding this idea of a constitutional amendment I doubt it will happen for another reason.

When Islam reaches some critical mass in the U. S. it will overstep itself in attempting to establish or obtain preferment for sharia or in supporting domestic terrorism. In the backlash it will be found to be a political activity under the Internal Revenue Code and its tax exemption will be revoked. That will be the effective end of Islam in America.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-09 21:31||   2007-10-09 21:31|| Front Page Top

#31 Darth and Nimble make my point about responding to behavior.

It's more than time to come down HARD on terror advocacy, financing, sedition, murder and all the rest. Yup, yea and Amen.

Americans are not likely to take kindly, I think, to what appears to be thought control and over-generalization. But we're pretty pragmatic (most of us, anyway) about behaviors. We don't like certain kinds of them and we're quite willing (most of us, anyway) to whomp those who insist on perpetrating them.
Posted by lotp 2007-10-09 21:37||   2007-10-09 21:37|| Front Page Top

#32 "Jesus rode at the head of no armed force, besieged no cities, conducted no massacres or reigns of terror nor did he encourage others to do so. Mo did. That is the irreconcilable dichotomy, not what their imperfect followers did in their names."

-money quote bro'! I'm procuring this one for later use amongst some of the idiot prof's that make up my new aquarium. Good one NS! (I like your other post to w/the rev code)
Posted by Broadhead6 2007-10-09 21:37||   2007-10-09 21:37|| Front Page Top

#33 Americans are not likely to take kindly, I think, to what appears to be thought control and over-generalization. But we're pretty pragmatic (most of us, anyway) about behaviors. We don't like certain kinds of them and we're quite willing (most of us, anyway) to whomp those who insist on perpetrating them.

That's why the Mormon hierarchy doesn't support those who practice polygamy.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-09 21:40||   2007-10-09 21:40|| Front Page Top

#34 Thank you BH6. I'm honored.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-10-09 21:43||   2007-10-09 21:43|| Front Page Top

#35 
Posted by reality cheque 2007-10-09 21:52||   2007-10-09 21:52|| Front Page Top

#36 Care to be a little more specific about which comment(s) you might be responding to?
Posted by lotp 2007-10-09 21:55||   2007-10-09 21:55|| Front Page Top

#37 I'm self-righteous way too often...can't recall cutting the throats of infidels or even trolls (heh, MS! :-)) that DOES constitute a difference, even for the moral-equivalence assholes
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-09 22:05||   2007-10-09 22:05|| Front Page Top

#38 That was our troll bk, He Of The Thousand Nyms. He was warned before about that. So I trolldumped the little shit.
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2007-10-09 22:12||   2007-10-09 22:12|| Front Page Top

#39 Jesus rode at the head of no armed force, besieged no cities, conducted no massacres or reigns of terror nor did he encourage others to do so. Mo did. That is the irreconcilable dichotomy, not what their imperfect followers did in their names.

Word, NS. How about it, lotp? Are you actually going to address this thread's principal issue about Islam being a political ideology or continue to skate like Tonya Harding?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 22:14||   2007-10-09 22:14|| Front Page Top

#40 It's more than time to come down HARD on terror advocacy, financing, sedition, murder and all the rest. Yup, yea and Amen.

All well and fine, lotp. IS ISLAM A VALID RELIGION?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 22:18||   2007-10-09 22:18|| Front Page Top

#41 Back off a bit, please, Zenster. I think lotp thinks enforcing behaviour is the key, allowing philosophy to follow if it can.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-09 22:19||   2007-10-09 22:19|| Front Page Top

#42 Heck, a lot of the muslims I've encountered admit that islam is both their religion and their politics, especially as it pertains to the ME, no news flash there. Is getting some sort of banning islam amendment passed feasible - prolly not methinks, but, you can do several things that would start relieving some issues:

1) no more new or severely limit immigration from muslim countries, plus immediate deportation for those that over stay their visas etc
2) seriously cut down on work visas & student visas to the ME
3) double security efforts on surveilance at mosques and muslim charities -- anyone caught funneling funds to anti-american agencies gets shut down, deported to mexico (I put that in 'cuz vicente fox pisses me off) or shot for treason.
Posted by Broadhead6 2007-10-09 22:21||   2007-10-09 22:21|| Front Page Top

#43 Thank you for your gracious input, trailing wife. This issue is far too critical. Either people understand that shari'a law is a political ideology or they continue to sip at the Kool-Aid of how Islam is the Religion of Peace™. [spit]

You should—of all people in this post-Holocaust world—know damn well better than any of us how important it is to discredit Islam as some sort of "religious" faith instead of the vile murderous genocidal filth it is. Do you disagree?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 22:28||   2007-10-09 22:28|| Front Page Top

#44 Aside from Zen's points I have to throw one out for all those Constitutional scholars here. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

That folks is from the Bill of Rights and in banning Congress from such an act it completely allows the States right to do such a thing.

Banning a proven death cult isn't out of the question. I put it to you that the only question here is how long before we are nuked and some States wake up and ban Islam.
Posted by Icerigger 2007-10-09 22:34||   2007-10-09 22:34|| Front Page Top

#45 the only question here is how long before we are nuked and some States wake up and ban Islam.

With or without the federal government's participation, your question remains of the utmost pertinence, Icerigger. I am still curious how Steve White and lotp continue to remain silent about whether Islam is or is not a valid religion. For now, we'll disregard the crucial question about Islam having any redeeming qualities—that is unless—either of them actually has a position on that topic.
[crickets]
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 22:52||   2007-10-09 22:52|| Front Page Top

#46 IS ISLAM A VALID RELIGION?

Zen, I like your question, but don't you think proving "validity" would be a highly subjective undertaking? To me, a more objective question is, Is Islam a beneficial religion? Does it benefit or uplift mankind, or does it degrade, abuse and denegrate?

Any reasonably intelligent person knows the answer. And that is more than enough reason to rein it in.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-10-09 22:59||   2007-10-09 22:59|| Front Page Top

#47 I'm still curious as to why you think you can dominate someone else's thread without blowback (again?), but hey, that's just me...
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-09 23:01||   2007-10-09 23:01|| Front Page Top

#48 The problem is, I could start a 'murder incorporated' type group, and call it a religion, and get tax free status and even get money from the Ford Foundation, United Way, and a plethra of do gooder whackos, who have no clue.
Our founders didn't think some murderer would form a religion, in fact, the religion in question was our first enemy as the Barbery Pirates.
These jerks teach murder and heavenly reward for committing murder. It's just not a religion, yet it is obviously a belief in eternal peace. My peace, your blood. It's inhuman, and as such, it should be banned. And, the UN should have banned Islam, but they were never capable of doing anything right.
Posted by wxjames 2007-10-09 23:02||   2007-10-09 23:02|| Front Page Top

#49 Oh clearly Sharia law is intended to establish Muslims as masters over the infidels within the polity, Zenster; thus pursuing its establishment is a political act. And those who pursue it are not fit to live amongst us... the incorrigible not fit to live, full stop. If this leaves behind a set of people whose faith is essentially a Muslim-flavoured Unitarianism, they having made the transition to refusing traditional readings of the 95 percent of the Sunna and Hadiths that require violence and conquest, plus those who are in truth apostate but didn't want to tell their mothers, I could accept that.

We discredit Islam by conquest and seduction, as we appear to be doing successfully in Iraq (I can't imagine Maliki being reelected, given his recent antics and known connections). Also by mockery -- each time another cartoon inspires Rage Boy, each time with a less respectful response and more outright, mocking laughter in the West.

Forgive me, I'm getting tired and my thoughts are not as focussed as I would like. I hope you don't mind that we continue this another day.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-10-09 23:03||   2007-10-09 23:03|| Front Page Top

#50 TW's right, this is a debate worthy of a full airing.
And as far as Iraq goes, we will pull out because we don't want to lose any more poor American boys. Then, rather than kill them in Iraq, we will sing cumbaja (sp) while they plant bombs under all our bridges.
Posted by wxjames 2007-10-09 23:09||   2007-10-09 23:09|| Front Page Top

#51 Forgive me, I'm getting tired and my thoughts are not as focussed as I would like. I hope you don't mind that we continue this another day.

I'd love nothing better, trailing wife. It would be a good thing if this debate was rolled over to a new thread. Dear moderators, please consider posting this thread as a new topic tomorrow.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 23:17||   2007-10-09 23:17|| Front Page Top

#52 Yo, Steve White and lotp, would you both of you please consider rolling this particular thread over for tomorrow's delectation? Personally, I think it would go a long way towards the both of yours wholly inadequate responses towards the queries posed herein. Perhaps that's just me but I doubt there's a dearth of support for my position.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 23:35||   2007-10-09 23:35|| Front Page Top

#53 I'd like to hope like hell you're right, Frank. I just don't think you are.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 23:55||   2007-10-09 23:55|| Front Page Top

#54 Weird!
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 23:56||   2007-10-09 23:56|| Front Page Top

#55 You were there a moment ago, Frank.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-09 23:57||   2007-10-09 23:57|| Front Page Top

23:57 Zenster
23:56 Zenster
23:55 Zenster
23:49 Zenster
23:47 Zenster
23:40 Zenster
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:35 Zenster
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:26 Xenophon
23:22 Zenster
23:21 Abdominal Snowman
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:17 Zenster
23:16 Mike Sylwester
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:09 wxjames
23:09 mcsegeek1
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:03 trailing wife
23:03 Zenster
23:02 JosephMendiola
23:02 wxjames
23:01 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com