HAPPILY ANCHORED: In the mouthing of dogmas!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2015

Part 2—Reciting what leaders have said:
As it turned out, Kevin Drum made a valid point.

He’d read a piece at the New Republic denouncing the use of the term “anchor baby.”

The term is offensive, the piece had said. But according to Drum, the piece in question never explained why the term is offensive:
DRUM (8/21/15): I'm curious about something. Last night I read a longish piece at TNR by Gwyneth Kelly titled “Why ‘Anchor Baby’ Is Offensive.” I was actually sort of curious about that, so I read through it. But all the article did was provide a bit of history about the term and quote a bunch of people saying it was disgusting and dehumanizing. There was no explanation of why it's offensive.
Drum went on to ask his readers to explain why the term is offensive. “I’m probably going to regret asking this,” he prophetically said. “But I am curious. It's not obvious from first principles what the problem is here.”

Uh-oh! To our ear, it sounded like Drum wasn’t sure that the term really is offensive. Tribal heresy to the side, he was certainly right about the TNR piece he had read.

Right in its headline, the New Republic said its piece would explain why the term is offensive. But despite that headline, Gwyneth Kelly never gave that explanation. She simply presented blurbs from pundits asserting that it is.

(For the record: On line, the full TNR headline says this: “Why ‘Anchor Baby’ Is Offensive—and a Distortion of Truth.”)

Kelly is just two years out of Northwestern, but she knows who we liberals should ape. This is the way she started:
KELLY (8/20/15): Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to lead not only in the polls, but with his crude rhetoric. In a Tuesday interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Trump questioned whether “anchor babies,” a pejorative term for babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, are legal American citizens. “What happens is [the parents] are in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby," he said. A day later, Jeb Bush called for “[b]etter enforcement so that you don't have these, you know, 'anchor babies,' as they're described, coming into the country.” And on Thursday, Bobby Jindal said he’s “happy to use” the term “anchor babies.”

Nevermind that “anchor babies” are largely a myth. The term is also an offensive, derogatory slur.
At this point, Kelly presented a tweet from Chris Hayes saying this: “The term ‘anchor baby’ is disgusting and dehumanizing. I can't believe anyone in ‘mainstream’ American politics uses it.”

She followed with this response from Jamelle Bouie: “I can’t say it any better. ‘Anchor baby’ doesn't belong in our discourse any more than a racial slur.”

Blurbing completed, Kelly went on to say that the American Heritage Dictionary lists the term as “offensive” and “disparaging,” a change from its original neutral listing in 2011. A person may agree with this view, of course, but Drum was right in his observation—at no point did Kelly explain why the term should be so regarded.

Should the term “anchor baby” be viewed as offensive? Is that term really as offensive as a racial slur? Should it be viewed as “disgusting?”

To our ear, Drum didn’t seem real sure in his initial post. But tribal leaders were plainly instructing us in this view when Kelly’s piece appeared.

Her piece appeared last Thursday. On MSNBC that evening, Hayes described the term as “a deeply loaded phrase that’s offensive to many.”

In making that statement, Hayes backslid from his earlier designation, perhaps in a racist manner. But one hour later, Rachel Maddow topped Hayes. The term is actually “super offensive,” the perpetually clowning cable anchor said.

Is the term super offensive? In his initial post, Drum seemed unsure—and so, he asked his readers to take the “anchor baby” challenge. Saying he would likely regret it, he asked his readers to explain why the term is offensive.

In our view, the results were highly instructive. In our view, Drum’s commenters helped us see the way we modern liberals are strongly inclined to reason. In our view, they displayed a deeply scripted tribal approach which strikes us as possibly quite ineffective.

What was striking about the comments Drum received? For one thing, people had a very hard time explaining why the term in question should be seen as offensive.

Don’t get us wrong! Almost everyone agreed that the term is offensive. But as Drum would note in a later post, almost no one could explain why.

The comments were largely a big pile of crap, the mild-mannered blogger would later observe. We’d have to say that Drum was right—and we think his point is important.

Why is the term “anchor baby” offensive? It would take a month of Sundays to catalog the bad explanations Drum received in that thread.

Several commenters said the term reminded them of the offensive term “welfare queen.” But they didn’t explain why the term should strike people that way.

Many commenters noted that the term is typically used by people who are criticizing the parents of the babies in question. That’s certainly true—but it doesn’t tell us why the term should be viewed as equivalent to a racial slur, or as offensive at all.

Other commenters found unique ways to make little sense. This is one of the first explanations Drum’s question occasioned:
COMMENTER: It’s demeaning, denies the humanity of the child, and makes the parents out to be inhuman monsters.

Other than that, you know, it’s fine.
Snark was present, but this comment offered little else. How does the term in question “make the parents out to be inhuman monsters?” The commenter didn’t attempt to say. This commenter spilled with certainty, but so does Candidate Trump.

Inevitably, more than a few comments took us off the deep end of the tribal pier, with the anchor of our tribal certainty dragging us toward the bottom. Over-“educated” savants explored the meaning of the terms which constitute the hateful expression. Cover the eyes of the children as we show you this:
COMMENTER: “Anchor” = brown

Edit to add that for those with ears to hear, "anchor" sounds a bit like the more blatantly racist “wetback,” no?
Does “anchor” sound like “wetback” to you? It does if you have ears to hear! Meanwhile, do you typically think of anchors as brown? Is that what people meant all those years when they called Walter Cronkite an anchor?

Tribal belief is powerful; it has been down through the murderous ages. It lets us hear what we want to hear, as in the second part of this analysis:
COMMENTER: The term riles up xenophobia over something which happens rarely. But it is also offensive in itself. It is a metaphor which compares a human being to a dumb inanimate object.

“You are an anchor baby” has a bit of similarity with “you are dumb as a box of hammers.”
The term is offensive in itself! It’s like saying the babies in question are dumb as a box of hammers!

Others possessed those same ears—or in this case, those same eyes:
COMMENTER: [The term] impl[ies] an abusive relationship where a child was purposefully born into an unstable legal position solely for the mother’s benefit. And I might add, it does so through some awful imagery (am I the only one who pictures a baby literally being used as an anchor?)
How horrible is the imagery occasioned by that hateful term? This commenter pictures the baby literally being used as an anchor! But this is the way we end up thinking when we surrender to true belief—to the pure and literal ultimate truth possessed by the one true tribe.

Should the term “anchor baby” be viewed as “super offensive?” Different people will judge that question in different ways.

We’ll only note that Drum was right in what he said about Kelly’s TNR piece. Two years out of Northwestern, Kelly was certain, right from the start, that the term in question was “an offensive, derogatory slur.” But despite the headline on her piece, she never even tried to say why other people should think such a thing. She simply quoted tribal leaders voicing the same idea.

Is the term in question “offensive in itself?” We’d be inclined to say “not hugely,” unless we’re mainly looking for ways to make ourselves feel tribally pure and good.

That doesn’t mean that Candidate Trump is making sensible presentations and proposals concerning immigration. It means that our current tribal approach, based upon eagerly taking offense, may not be the most effective way to address his crackpot proposals, claims and behaviors.

In this follow-up post,
the normally mild-mannered Drum rejected the bulk of the explanations he received in response to his question.

We’d say that Drum made several good points as he reviewed the explanations he had received. Mainly, though, we were struck by the way he threw his readers under the bus in his exasperated comments.

Normally, Drum is fair-minded, perhaps to a fault. In this instance, he suggested his readers tend to be “tribal hacks” whose comments are almost totally worthless. (For background, see yesterday’s award-winning post.)

If we might borrow from Candidate Trump, we have a bigger heart than that! But we can see why the frustrated Drum made those despairing remarks.

We’re standing with Drum, not with Trump! We too had been struck by the rhymes-with-daiquiri which larded the comments to his post. And we were struck by something else. We were struck by how poorly many of Drum’s commenters seemed to understand the issues involved in this latest exciting dispute, which the corporate cable nets love.

We liberals! Increasingly, we tend to spill with tribal certainty—certainty which is now being sold, for profit and fun, at various corporate sites. Even worse, we tend to be low on the types of actual knowledge which might enable us to change people’s minds about the various unlikely proposals offered by Candidate Trump.

We’re scripted and certain and lack the first clue. Other than that, we rule!

Tomorrow: A problem with Trump’s basic portrait

48 comments:

  1. "An online CNN poll linked to the network's coverage of the Arellano story showed 93 percent of respondents opposing the proposition that "anchor babies" should immunize a parent from deportation"

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-08-17/news/0608170077_1_elvira-arellano-arrest-and-deportation-rosa-parks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, then thank God that "anchor babies" DON'T "immunize a parent from deportation."

      Delete
    2. @ 12:26

      According to POTUS Obama they are indeed immunized.

      'If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.'

      'You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.'

      POTUS Obama November, 2014

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by73h2JmIno


      Delete
    3. Uh huh. And this the term "anchor baby" originated only last November.

      Delete
    4. Cicero, it's one of 3 factors. We get nowhere if you can't be objective.

      Delete
    5. @AC/MA

      You might wish to admonish your Howler lib compatriots who deny Obama's dictum specifically included illegal alien parents of children born in the USA.

      Delete
  2. I submit that if neither Somerby nor Drum can recognize a dog-whistle term and the purpose for which it is used, then no amount of explaining will satisfy them.

    And no, Bob. There are lots of intelligent, thinking people who see this term for what it is, and are not simply parroting their "leaders."

    But then again, considering that possibility would require you to think it over some more. Much easier to call names, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The term riles up xenophobia

    There are groups who get special treatment under the rules of political correctness. E.g., virtually any criticism of blacks, Native Americans, or gays is considered non-PC. This requirement is justified as necessary to fight racism and homophobia.

    Some people would now like to make all non-Americans such a preferred group. Criticism should be prohibited because it might cause xenophobia. "Anchor baby" criticizes something done by non-Americans,m so it's intrinsically non-PC, whether it's accurate or not.

    P.S. IMHO there's a lot of resentment against the PC police. Trump's gratuitous racism is earning points with voters who are not necessarily racist, but who resent having their speech curtailed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Help me out here David. Cite me a specific example of when it is perfectly OK to criticize blacks as a race -- or Native Americans or gays.

      I would also like to know who these "some people" are who have already given "special treatment" to these particular groups of people and now want to extend that to all "non-Americans."



      Delete
    2. I'm not clear here, Anon 12:56. Are your questions rhetorical? Are they meant to imply something? E.g., are you implying that it's never OK to criticize blacks, Native Americans or gays as a group? Anyhow, I'll take a whack:

      I think it's OK to criticize a group when that criticism is valid and when it's aimed at pointing out a problem in need of solution. E.g., I think it's fine to point out the high crime rate among blacks or the high rate of alcoholism among Native Americans in the context of seeking solutions to these problems.

      Special treatment: A liberal friend of mine is a noted Professor at Northwestern. He told me once that if a black person complained that something on campus offended him, the offending person would always be punished, regardless of the facts. Here's an example from a different campus. A part-time student/employee was reading a book about the Ku Klux Klan. The book was totally anti-Klan. A black student said the cover of the book offended him, so the book reader was punished.

      Delete
    3. David, your story about the punished book reader is as full of bullshit as you are. Try to make up better stories than that. At least make them more entertaining.

      And you are slipping. You used to cite your wife, then your cousins, then your wife's cousins all of whom just so happened experts in the field in question. Now your down to citing a convenient "liberal friend of mine" as a cover for yet another bullshit assertation from the depths of your nether regions.

      So it's OK to say blacks are criminals and Native Americans drunks as long as you are striving to reach the altruistic goals of solving their problems.

      So tell me, David. Got any solutions? Specific to those two populations you cite for criminal behavior and alcoholism?

      Or do you, like Trump, like spouting racist stereotypes because it makes you feel better than someone else?

      Delete
    4. Anon 7:43 -- IMHO the problems I cited about blacks and Native Americans were, to a great degree, unintended consequences of well-meaning liberal policies. I would be happy to expand, but it would hijack the entire thread.

      Regarding the Ku Klux Klan book, it seems unbelievable, doesn't it? You could have found the case via google, but I looked it up for you.


      Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis: Student Employee Found Guilty of ‘Racial Harassment’ for Reading a Book

      Delete
  4. I will present my argument for why the term 'anchor baby' is offensive. Forgive the pedantry, but Mr. Somerby often displays an inordinate amount of obtuseness.
    1) It analogizes the birth of a human baby to the dropping of an anchor by a ship
    2) It is implied that the only reason the mother had the baby was for its 'anchoring' purpose
    3) A parent, or parents, who produce a child for a mercantile reason are viewed as immoral, and the baby is mere property
    4) This dehumanization of the parents and baby is what is offensive about the term

    A further aggravating factor is

    5) The actual evidence that a parent, or parents do this is negligible, therefore it is also being used to slander an entire group (ie. Latinos and Asians) as condoning such actions.

    While I agree that people should ideally be able to present a cogent argument for why a term is offensive, their inability to do so, does not mean they are simply being tribal.
    Moreover, given that the term is deemed offensive by legitimate reference works, it should not be necessary to re-argue why it is so

    anchor baby at American Heritage Dictionary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the term is easily considered offensive for the reasons you cite. However, the use of *any* term for the children they are referring to (those born in the U.S. deliberately to affect immigration status) would be offensive for the same reasons. When referring specifically to these children, what should the (non-offensive) terminology be? I don't think the terminology is grossly offensive as much as the use of this term as a "dog whistle" in the policy discussions. Using a different term would not change the outrage.

      Delete
    2. I think those are all reasonable points and should be intuitively obvious. I disagree with TDH on this subject.

      One other point I have seen no one comment on. Watching Trump last night press conference ( and he has repeated this on other occasions) is his really ugly hypothetical. He postulates someone 9 months pregnant, crossing the border for one day just to have their child, and then he says, paraphrasing,

      "and then we have to take care of that child for the next 80 years"

      What utter bullshit. It's totally the opposite. If the child is a citizen and can go to school and get a job and pay taxes how in the fuck is Donald Trump taking care of that child? I can't fucking believe this guy gets away with saying these things all the time and no one ever calls him on it.

      Delete
    3. @1:04

      1) Comparing giving birth to the dropping of a maritime anchor is a forced analogy perpetrated by the PC poltroons.

      2) POTUS Obama recognizes offspring born in the country to illegal aliens as factor in non deportation actions against the parents.

      3) Planned Parenthood has no problem advocating that babies are indeed the property of the mother.

      4) When have liberals ever objected to dehumanizing babies?

      5) If this is a "negligible" occurrence why has POTUS Obama included "anchor babies" as a circumstance that allows the parents to remain in the country?

      Delete
    4. Oh don't you get it? Every immigrant who ever came to this country, legal or otherwise, has always been a burden on society.

      This line of thinking dates back at least to the 19th Century Know-Nothings, if not before.

      Delete
    5. "5) If this is a "negligible" occurrence why has POTUS Obama included "anchor babies" as a circumstance that allows the parents to remain in the country?"

      So where does Obama say, "If you come here illegally and pregnant just to have your kid in the U.S., you get to stay."

      Delete
    6. @ 1:26

      "if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents....you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation." POTUS Obama

      Why would Obama need to be any more specific than the above statement? Where does Obama say "If you came here illegally and pregnant just to have your kid in the U.S you would be disqualified from this non deportation order."

      Delete
    7. Cicero, how many babies were born in the United States in the last 10 years under the circumstances you describe?

      Surely, if you say this is a huge problem, then you've got some data to back that up.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous @ 1:05 has posted the comment that I intended to post.

      Thank you.

      This series, like many of Bob's recent posts illustrates the blindness Bob exhibits to the modern machinery of white supremacy in this country. Trump is riding a wave by unapologetically voicing all of the garbage that people hear on right wing radio in the context of a presidential primary and his intended audience loves it.
      I keep thinking that the great fallacy in Bob's critique of current discourse is that there are persuadable swing voters in the polity. All of the current studies show that group is tiny as a percentage of the electorate. The other misunderstanding that Bob holds is that there is a great multi-racial working class coalition that can be built if we just find the right words.
      Political science research has found that to be a fantasy.

      Delete
    9. Here's what we should be discussing.

      “'What happens is [the parents] are in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,' he said." Trump on the O'Reilly Factor.

      Of course, somebody would first have to explain to Somerby why that might be offensive.

      Delete
    10. @ 1:42

      There must be a sufficient amount to warrant POTUS Obama creating special dispensation for said parents.

      Delete
    11. "There must be . . ." Translation: I don't have the slightest clue.

      And sorry, no "special dispensation" was given to parents who come here to have children. It was granted to parents who already have children who are U.S. citizens.

      And he only granted them the ability to apply for a visa to stay here temporarily, hopefully long enough for adults there may be in Congress to come up with a better, longer-term solution.

      So I got a quick quiz for you, cicero. Under which president was the last full-blown amnesty given to undocumented aliens?

      Delete
    12. @ 3:03

      Are you claiming that POTUS Obama has exempted future illegal alien parents who will give birth to babies in the U.S. from his special dispensation? Please link to this Obama caveat.

      The issue here is "anchor babies" not What POTUS Reagan did in the 1980's. But it is refreshing to see Howler libs praise Reagan rather than the usual demonization of him.

      Delete
    13. cicero, I am saying that right-wing crazies find it easy to invent problems that don't exist because there are plenty of racist fools such as yourself who are gullible enough to believe them and stupid enough not to ask for evidence.

      Delete
    14. @3:39

      In regards to your requisite for evidence, you have failed to offer proof of any racist content in my posts. The preponderance of libs like yourself have managed to render the term racist meaningless.

      But thanks for admitting that Obama's dictum does indeed apply to future "anchor baby" parents.

      Delete
    15. Your posts are the best prima facie evidence possible of a racism so deep that you are willing to believe anything your right-wing masters tell you without requiring evidence to support it.

      Delete
    16. While a boon to low wage employers, I'm not in favor of an open borders immigration policy.

      I would expect that it's rare for expectant mothers to be trekking across the desert just days prior to giving birth. Better question is, are people here illegally incentivized in any way to have a kid?

      Delete
  5. Would the Latino community have the same principled stance if "Anchor Babies" were of mostly western european descent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only speak for myself, but I find such terms offensive regardless of what ethnic/racial group it is applied.

      Delete
    2. @2:36

      Nobody is advocating a law that prohibits your right to be offended.

      Delete
    3. Nobody is saying that anyone is advocating such a law.

      But Somerby is clearly stating, for the third time this week, that if I find "anchor babies" offensive, then you are only parroting what his chosen and usual targets have programmed me to think.

      And why? Because Somerby can't think of any possible explanation how anyone could consider "anchor babies" to be an offensive term.

      Delete
  6. The progressive left grievance industry claims another 3 victims today.

    The Virginia shooter was motivated by hype around "recent shootings in the news" including Charleston. The Charleston perp was also motivated by hype around "recent shootings in the news" particularly the lies reported about the Travyon Martin incident.

    The progressive left's hyping of "racist" shootings, not slavery, is the root cause of the deaths in Charleston and Virginia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or another possible explanation: The "Virginia shooter" who has a name, by the way, Vester Lee Flanagan, was a deeply disturbed and possibly even mentally ill man.

      But hey, let's not bother with that. Let's rush to the conclusion that best fits our ideology. After all, ideology trumps everything.

      Delete
    2. @ 3:10

      Except your "explanation " sounds more as if you mean justification. Whether the now confirmed deceased murderer had emotional problems will be of great comfort to the relatives of his victims.

      Delete
    3. cicero, I wasn't trying to "explain" or "justify" anything.

      I was merely pointing out that our friend at 2:41 already thinks he knows everything about this case, and it just so happens to neatly fit into his political ideology,

      Delete
    4. It could well be a case of self-defense for all we know.

      Delete
  7. "She made racist comments" appears to be the shooter's justification and last Tweet. He responded in accordance with the SJW code of proportional justice. "Racist comments" are the SJW equivalent of the radical Islamist prohibition against drawing Mohammad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be a jerk.

      Delete
    2. He had to, he got dissed.

      Delete
  8. I am hearing that Bernie Sanders may not qualify for the ballot in NH. What is that about?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am struck by how much this reminds me of education. In education we typically will learn WHAT the truth is. It is far less important to know WHY it is true. It's true, basically, because the teacher says so. If you dare to waste time wonder why it is true, you might end up with a bad grade, AND, any GOOD student does not ever, ever get to decide "I do not agree with the teacher (or the textbook)"

    Thus, people who have a different point of view are either ignorant or idiots. Because every educated person KNOWS what we believe. Even worse, if you happen to be white, or male, or straight, and doubting some of the liberal dogma from non-whites, feminists, or GLBTQ. Well, then obviously YOU cannot see it because you are racist, sexist, homophobic. You lack the experience of those other groups and lack the empathy to agree with whatever they say. Drum, of course, had to semi-apologize for being a middle aged white guy.

    But here I am, again, whitesplaining and mansplaining, when I am really just obviously egregiously WRONG, and defective for being so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My Husband divorce me for no reason for 9 months and i tried all I could to have him back because I really love him so much but all my effort did not work out,My name is Becky Miller, I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete