SELMA ON OUR MINDS: Race is our product, our tribe’s only product!


Part 4—A slippery professor churns script:
By some act of legerdemain, Professor Joseph seemed to know where the dispute had come from.

Why had some people criticized Selma’s portrayal of President Johnson? According to Professor Joseph, Selma’s treatment of Johnson had “sparked a controversy that could threaten the film's legacy and, in the short term, its chances for prestigious awards.”

Professor Joseph wrote his column about this matter for NPR. The column appeared on NPR’s web site on January 10.

The assessment we have quoted was perfectly plausible. But what had sparked the controversy about the film's portrait of Johnson?

Mind-reading brilliantly, the young professor eventually gave tribal members the news:
PROFESSOR JOSEPH (1/10/15): Part of the controversy over Selma stems not only from the film's portrait of Johnson, but from the lack of white protagonists in major roles. This is not to say that the movie only shows whites as villains. If Alabama Gov. George Wallace and the brutal Selma Sheriff Jim Clark are depicted as unapologetic racists—which they were—sympathetic white characters abound, including James Reeb and Viola Liuzzo, two relatively unknown figures from the Selma protests who were killed by local whites for their activism. And two Johnson men, adviser Lee C. White and Assistant Attorney General John Doar, are portrayed as quietly determined allies of the movement.

Selma is unapologetic in depicting the movement as one that was primarily led by black women and men. Black women stand out on this score with subtle and nuanced depictions of Coretta Scott King, Annie Lee Cooper, Diane Nash, and Amelia Boynton definitively illustrating black women's fierce activist commitment and leadership in civil rights struggles...

The real problem many critics have with this film is that it's too black and too strong. Our popular reimagining of the civil rights movement is that it's something we all did together and the battle is over; that's just not true.
Are those assessments accurate? Did part of the controversy “stem from the lack of white protagonists in major roles?” Is “the real problem many critics have with this film” the fact that “it's too black and too strong?”

Let’s start with a basic question. Who are the “many critics” for whom this is said to be the real problem?

Can we talk? Frankly, Selma hasn’t drawn a whole lot of critics! Published critics tended to review the film in reverential ways, as typically happens when film-makers tackle topics of this type.

Whatever one thinks of their assessments, our major reviewers tended to review Selma quite favorably. Who then are the “many critics” who found the film “too black and too strong?”

Mind-reading nicely while working from script, Professor Joseph never named the “many critics” for whom this was “the real problem.” In fairness, the professor did suggest two possible suspects, one of whom didn’t criticize Selma at all (see below).

Still, we were told that “many critics” felt the film was too black and too strong. Sadly, though, we were never really told who these “many critics” are. We were just told that “many critics” had this racial reaction.

Alas! In this rather slippery way, Professor Joseph was working from a low-IQ script—a script our sadly low-IQ tribe quickly adopted in response to criticisms of Selma, real and/or imagined.

Our sad tribe simply loves playing this card! When Selma didn’t receive a pair of Oscar nominations, it must have been a racial “snub,” we quickly agreed to say. When people criticized Selma’s portrait of Johnson, this had to mean that these “many critics” found the film to be “too black and too strong.”

It had to be a matter of race! Increasingly, this seems to be the only script our tribe knows how to apply.

Mind-reading nicely, Professor Joseph explained all criticism away in one fell race-based swoop. That said, it’s odd to see him making this play, because he seems to agree with critics who say that the portrait of Johnson was a bit inaccurate:
PROFESSOR JOSEPH: Selma's treatment of President Lyndon B. Johnson has sparked a controversy that could threaten the film's legacy and, in the short term, its chances for prestigious awards. As portrayed by British actor Tom Wilkinson, LBJ is a beleaguered president and is—at times—exasperated with King on the issue of voting rights. Historically, LBJ and King formed an effective political relationship on the issue, although real tensions emerged between the two men when Johnson suggested that voting legislation be pursued later, rather than earlier, in the congressional session. Johnson feared that an immediate push for the black vote would undermine his ambitions for a "Great Society." Selma's script hews close to the historical record on this point. Still, the unsympathetic portrayal of Johnson suggests a president who was an antagonist on voting rights rather than a supporter.
In that last highlighted statement, the professor seems to agree with those who have said that the “unsympathetic” portrayal of Johnson was a bit misleading. Despite this assessment, he slimes the “many critics” who have adopted a similar view, suggesting that they must have mossbacked racial motives.

Once again, who are these critics? In this passage, the professor identifies two apparent suspects:
PROFESSOR JOSEPH: The hyperbolic response from some critics includes the outrageous (and false) assertion that the Selma protests were actually Johnson's idea, and suggestions that the film's portrait of Johnson should disqualify it from awards (read Oscar) consideration.

A new line of criticism outlined in the Jewish Daily Forward argues that Selma disfigured the historical civil rights movement by "airbrushing" Jewish allies from the film. That's an argument that would carry more weight if DuVernay had focused on other moments in civil rights history, like Freedom Summer, when white and Jewish allies played a more prominent role. The events depicted in Selma were driven largely by the African-American activists portrayed in the film.
In that first paragraph, Professor Joseph is talking about Joseph Califano, the 83-year-old former Johnson aide who wrote an angry column about Selma’s portrait of his former boss in the Washington Post.

In our view, Califano’s column was hyperbolic or overwrought in points, although it was also informative. That said, does the professor claim that Califano found the film “too black and too strong?”

How could the professor know such a thing? Perhaps because he was typing from script, he felt no need to tell us.

The professor’s citation of the Jewish Daily Forward seems to lead us to the name of a second critic. Professor Joseph links to this piece by Mark Pinsky—a lengthy piece which doesn’t criticize Selma at all!

Go ahead! Read Pinksy’s long piece! Professor Joseph can type from a script—but can he read a newspaper column?

In his lengthy piece, Pinsky mentions Selma just once, very much in passing. Manifestly, he doesn’t “argue that Selma disfigured the historical civil rights movement by ‘airbrushing’ Jewish allies from the film,” nor does he argue anything like that.

But then, as a simple matter of fact, Pinsky doesn’t criticize Selma at all! He doesn’t state anything like the view Joseph puts in his mouth. The word “airbrushing” doesn’t appear in his piece. Neither does the self-involved claim Joseph attributes to him.

Is Pinsky one of the “many critics” who think the film was too black and too strong? Alas! Based on his actual column, Pinsky isn’t a critic of Selma at all! If Califano was hyperbolic (and we think he was), what word should we apply to Professor Joseph?

Alas! Our pseudo-liberal tribe is increasingly scripted and dumb. All too often, our scrub-faced professors seem to be leading the way to the dumbness.

Professor Joseph was slippery and slick in his piece for NPR—but he was playing the one card we know. Increasingly, this is the ditto-headed way our sad “liberal” tribe very much likes to function.

Still coming: Director Eastwood gets snubbed! Plus, our silly tribe’s ridiculous concept of “fiction”

Go ahead—we dare you: Go ahead! Read Professor Joseph’s account of the Pinsky piece. Then read the column itself.

It doesn’t criticize Selma at all! Our tribe just seems to get dumber each day—and we tribals just don’t seem to notice.


  1. And everyone has ignored the complaints of the family and friends of Ralph Abernathy, who know well that everything MLK did, he did with Abernathy, because they were close collaborators throughout the civil rights activities portrayed in this film, and because Abernathy carried on MLK's legacy after his death. That minimizing was done to make MLK more of a heroic figure. Being good "race men" the family members have not been vocal about the way the film treated Abernathy, but it is another unfairness that has nothing to do with being black and strong and everything to do with respect for historical record, legacy of the many others who were part of the movement, and the collective accomplishments of people working together. Perhaps that is too complex a reality for a new director like DuVernay to portray in film but it is what happened. Some people care about what actually happened -- not just about advancing a racial agenda. When enough aspects of a biographical film are distorted to fit the director's message, it becomes propaganda. People tend not to enjoy that because it feels like being lectured instead of entertained. Maybe that was why the film got few awards besides the nominal "best picture," which I think was accorded to honor MLK and his cause of justice, not this film at all.

    1. Explain what DuVernay did in the film that would justify an Oscar nomination for Best Director.

    2. I made no comment about DuVernay.

    3. Right, you made no comment.

    4. I made a comment. I feel no need to repeat it in light of your fine efforts to reinforce it.

    5. Right, you made no comment.

  2. Tom Wilkinson is a British actor who has by now played Benjamin Franklin (in the John Adams miniseries) and now Lyndon Johnson (in "Selma"). How long are American actors going to put up with foreigners coming into their country and taking all the good acting jobs, probably for much less pay?. (For the record, Wilkinson also played Gen. Cornwallis in that Mel Gibson "Patriot" movie, but that's OK.)

    I was re-watching "Inherit the Wind" Sunday. Now there's a movie that plays fast and loose with the historical record in order to tell a better story and reveal a "higher truth." They even changed the names of everybody and everything except the state of Tennessee, and no doubt they were sorry they couldn't plausibly do that. They even changed H.L. Mencken into an athletically slim wise-cracking tap dancer. Mamas, don't let your novelists grow up to be screenwriters.

    Thus has it ever been with movies purporting to convey history, beginning (chronologically) with "One Million Years BC." "Selma" the movie should've moved the march from 1965 back to 1963, when Kennedy had the slows over civil rights because he had to hold on to the Yellow Dogs. Instead, they transferred Kennedy's 1963 footdragging to LBJ. MLK did have to put up with some obdurance from a POTUS -- just not that POTUS and just not that year.

    Tomorrow night is Robert Redford political movie night on TCM. I'll be watching, for the 50th time perhaps, "All the President's Men," secure in the knowledge that I'll seeing a factual point-for-point cinematic telling of how the vile Nixon was gloriously and heroically deposed.

    1. The movie was based on a play that made nearly all those changes, much like Arthur Miller's The Crucible changed a great deal about the witch trials. One could argue the film was pretty faithful to the play.

    2. Mickey Rooney was robbed, robbed I tell you.

    3. Worse than that. He was snubbed.


    5. @Jeeves Stump,

      Creative license abound in "All The Presidents Men." More people died one night as the result of Chappaquiddick than during the entire Watergate affair. At no time were Woodward or Bernstein's life in peril as is claimed by the Deep Throat character as played by Hal Hobrook.

      Also, Bob Woodward was informed about the White House taping system long before Alexander Butterfield announced it to the Watergate Committee, but WaPo editor Ben Bradley didn't think it was of any significance and never ran a story on it.

  3. Not only does Pinsky's article not argue anything like that airbrushing in the film, he describes the lack of involvement of Montgomery Jews and the tensions between local Jews and Northern Jews who were allied with the civil rights movement. Only Levin (with co-founded SPLC) was a Montgomery Jew active in civil rights. Others allied with white supremacists or were silent in order to become "assimilated." Clearly Joseph didn't bother reading the article closely. If a professor did this in a professional publication, it would be considered very bad scholarship. Much like when DuVernay portrays LBJ's opinions as the opposite of what they actually were.

    Somerby chalks these distortions up to racial scripts. Another alternative explanation, stupidity, is less flattering. Personally, I think this is happening because no one reads any more. Everything is broken into sound bites and easily assimilated nuggets, plain themes, and obvious plots, because everyone is multitasking and no one pays real attention to anything any more. Joseph perhaps skimmed the article and thought he knew what it was saying. DuVernay perhaps thinks that a film is an icon that no one watches but which stands as a proxy for people's roles in the industry. If the film is well received, so are black people. If black actors and directors matter, so must their films. So, if the films are spurned it must be because of racism, since it isn't about the film at all.

    1. Unfortunately the headline for Pinsky's article is "Why Were 'Selma' Jews Who Fought for Civil Rights Ostracized?

      It is clearly the kind of headline that Somerby would savage if it appeared in Salon since the article itself doesn't mention a single Jew in connection with Selma the town or "Selma" the movie.

    2. So you're saying Joseph only read the headline? The article talks about them being ostracized by other Jews, not the film Selma.

    3. Based on reading both Joseph and Pinsky it would appear neither he nor the headline writer paid much attention to Pinsky's article. Nor should they have. It was...what is the term...fuzzy and muddled. Which is not to say anyone should have paid much attention to Joseph either, unless you are a blogger looking for a piece to fit your script.

  4. Surprised you didn't consult the Rotten Tomatoes web site. It aggregates movie reviewers and measures what percentage of critics like a given movie. 99% of critics liked Selma - out of 159 reviews, by my count, exactly two were negative. Among critics, it has the highest rating of any Academy Award nominee:

    1. Rotten Tomatoes ratings are agenda-driven and skewed. If a film has a gay slant or theme, it will get at least another 25 percentage points from agenda-driven critics. You will see almost all gay-themed films show an above 90% critic rating and usually have a much lower audience rating. This discrepancy also exists with racial-agenda-themed films. Selma also had a high audience rating and so the ratings are more reliable for someone attempting to gauge the quality but the self-selected audience factor for a film with a particular slant will also skew the audience rating.

      Likewise, any film with a moral or religious slant will lose at least 25 points, usually more, on critic reviews, and there will be a large discrepancy with audience ratings. If it is a Kurt Cameron type film neither the critics nor the audience can be trusted, but if it is a film with more subtle religious or moral themes, critics will notice them and hold it against the film, while audiences will respond positively and there will be a conspicuous discrepancy between critic and audience ratings.

      Rotten Tomatoes for fast food would show a 94% food critic rating for Gay Burger and a 55% audience rating, and a 23% critic rating for Chick Fil A with a 96% audience rating.

    2. 2:27 may be the stupidest comment ever to appear on this site, a real high bar to hurdle!

      Don't anyone tell 2:27 that a film's supposed "gay theme" may be very difficult to disentangle from a "moral theme," as many films that have dealt with "gay themes" were explicitly addressing a moral deficit in our culture!

      The same, of course, holds true for many of what some would consider "racial-agenda-themed" films -- their concomitant "moral theme" could hardly be more obvious.

    3. To clarify, "moral theme" in this case means themes or characters that reflect family values which include sexual morality, a nuclear family standard, working to earn a living, abstaining from drug abuse. The films with gay themes generally don't address any moral deficit as did Philadelphia, but are highly rated despite being just short of mediocre, at best.

      There is nothing wrong with Selma and 12 Years a Slave as moral statements but slavery and Selma are over and the more pressing moral issue for the black community is a lack of family values and other ethics. Perpetual grievance is the only racial theme that appeals to the Hollywood left.

    4. Racism is a moral theme. It also displays a lack of human values and other ethics.

    5. Monogamy and the nuclear family are the heteronormative agenda. Not everyone is heterosexual.

    6. Not everyone is heterosexual but those pressing the heteronormative agenda don't know what they are missing
      if they haven't tried a Gay Burger yet.

    7. Racism is not a moral theme. Everyone is against it. The problems arise when people disagree about what is racist and what is not. These films about Selma and slavery are easy for everyone to like because they concern obviously immoral actions safely in the past. A theme about current racism would be more controversial. It is hard to think of filmmakers making such films. Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" and "Jungle Fever" were current at the time. Clint Eastwood's movie about the racist old coot who changes was current. (forgot the title). These historical dramas are useless except as feel-good exercises. Did anyone see Reese Witherspoon in that file about African immigrants in the US -- The Good Lie? It has some moral dimensions and complexity in a racial context.

    8. "Gran Torino". Not Eastwood's best, but a very fine film.

    9. Clint's work has suffered since he parted ways with Sondra Locke.

    10. Clint's best part was in "The Beguiled." He played a Yankee sniper. No word from Michael Moore if that Eastwood movie offended him. Of course there is no evidence that Moore's uncle was KIA in WWII by a Japanese sniper. That is just a new embellishment on the story since "American Sniper" hit theaters.

  5. We didn’t love the movie. We thought it was surprisingly poor, just not a great piece of work.

    We thought the film was mediocre at best. In many ways, we thought it was rather poor.

    We rarely like “historical dramas” of this type. It’s hard to turn important historical events into two-hour dramas. To us, Selma seemed to come in on the low end of such productions.

    We thought the film was rather leaden—and we can’t help wondering if mainstream reviewers may perhaps feel compelled to say different.

    We thought Selma was murky, dull, uninspired, uninspiring.

    As we watched Selma last weekend, we found ourselves wondering why anyone would have picked David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King as one of the best of the year.

    We thought he brought little life to his role, in large part due to the lifeless script and the lifeless scenes he was asked to perform.

    1. Clever.

      So what do we think of "Blue Crush"?

    2. Joe Bob Briggs did not deem it worthy of review so neither shall we. Must not have had enough lesbofu.

    3. I thought Daniel Day Lewis was awful as Lincoln and I hated the anachronistic additions to make it appear African Americans played a greater role in his decision-making than they did, largely because it was so forced, kind of like product-placement (with the lantern slides and the folks in the balcony of the senate). It was an awful movie and yet no one is permitted to criticize it because it is inextricable from the way we are supposed to feel about history and slavery. Somerby has the cognitive ability to separate the film itself from attitudes toward race and see the film for what it was -- mediocre. Lincoln was mediocre-plus -- undermined by the cartoonish depiction of the vote-bartering and the issues drawn with a crayon so that every member of the audience will understand how to feel about everything. We don't get to imagine the horror of the field hospital amputations -- we have to see them, and so it is with everything.

    4. Yes, indeed. If Somerby says a movie is mediocre, then by golly, it's mediocre. Absolutely nobody else is entitled to any other opinion.

      So easy to be a Somerby sheep, isn't it?

    5. Certainly the Academy is not entitled to its opinion.

    6. I thought Tommy Lee Jones was brilliant in Lincoln. His best work since Love Story, which was based on a book whose lead male character was based largely around him.

    7. Cobb was his best film.

    8. To me"JFK" was great. It was not an accurate depiction of its inaccurate source material, which was based on real events caused by a conspiracy driven mind. It never mentioned the Kennedy brothers complicity in wiretapping MLK, but it got lots and lots of Oscar nods. Including one for Tommy Lee Jones. And it was made after Love Story. So there!

    9. Anonymous @ 12:24 I apologize for overlooking Cobb. Jones was strong in that, but perhpas I overlooked him due to the always stellar presence of Robert Wuhl. His on screen chemistry with Lolita Davidovich rivals what he acheived with Marcia Gay Harden.

      Unfortunately it got only a 64% rating in Rotten Tomatoes, way below other baseball docudramas like "Pride of the Yankees" and "42." It did score higher than "Blue Crush."
      I generally find sports films deflating. You may differ.

    10. With Oliver Stone it's pure fiction. He doesn't even try.


  6. Blogger Somerby is slippery and clever in his post, never referring to Peniel Joseph by his full name, but rather as Professor Joseph, as if he were a character in play put on by his analysts for a drama class on campus. Perhaps Blogger Somerby has done this before and a rationale exists for such a tactic. It just cannot be recalled at the moment.

  7. Professor One Trick is a black man with a doctorate in history and whose area of interest is African American history. He is writing about a film based on historical figures and events involving the struggle for black voting rights in the South.

    Can you imagine the temerity of such a man to inject race into the discussion? Not just a trickster. What a putz.

    Thanks for demonstrating the failure of liberals again, Mr. S.

    1. How does that excuse his mischaracterizing the Pinsky article he himself discussed?

      Are we supposed to treat every African American professor as a great scholar even when he makes big mistakes, simply because he is black. I would assume Somerby left out Joseph's race because (1) it should be irrelevant to the worth of his arguments, and (2) he feared he would be called a racist for criticizing someone black discussing a black issue. And lo and behold, #2 is exactly what is happening now.

      Somerby didn't criticize Joseph for injecting race. He criticized him for saying inaccurate things about Pinsky's article in order to support his own argument about the role of race in reception of the film.

      If you process an argument differently because a black man is saying it compared to a white man, that is racialist thinking. I think it is also racist. Didn't MLK himself say people should not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character. Why not judge people by the content of their words, not just their skin color? Or is every black person automatically correct about everything and anything they might say on a historical topic involving race?

      It goes without saying that white people are not accorded that kind of privilege. I find it interesting that black and white exist only in contrast to each other. If biracial people are permitted to exist as a subgroup, they will make the polarity obsolete -- I think that, not census-considerations, is why African American organizations have fought so hard against recognizing that third category. And as South Africa demonstrated, there are a whole bunch of other people left out of this kind of racial discussion. Clumsily trying to co-opt Hispanics as "people of color" when it suits certain purposes is an intellectually bankrupt tactic. I'm glad Somerby is chafing at the restrictions liberals are trying to impose on our discussion of race.

    2. Let's start with a basic question? How does anything written by Bob Somerby demonstrate Peniel Joseph is a liberal? That said, how does anything written by Peniel Joseph demonstrate he is a liberal?

      How does your comment show you have a scintilla of higher intellect than the one with which you opened this comment box?

    3. Sez @ 6:23: "Somerby didn't criticize Joseph for injecting race."

      True. He criticized Joseph for product selection.

  8. Anonymous @ 11:05 gets results!



    An amazing testimony on a spell caster who brought my wife back to me.. My name is Andy Sowers,i live in Australia,and I'm happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids.A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce.she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she didn't love me anymore.So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she 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 wife.So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife 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 wife who didn't call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she 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 DR benedict. So.
    So,if you are in a similar problem or any kind of problems you can also contact him via his email(}he is the solution to all your problems and predicaments in life.his email again is{}.


    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) If you want to be promoted in your office.
    (3) If you want a child.
    (4) If you want to be rich.
    (5) if you have any sickness like ( H I V/AIDS ),(CANCER) or any sickness.

    once again make sure you contact him if you have any problem he will help you. his email address is(

  10. Have you heard of Doctor AJAYI the great spell caster. He is truly great just as people testify about him on the internet and radio. i came to realize that Doctor AJAYI was sent by God to help man when he cast a spell for me that made me win lotteries. I played lottery for years and had not win any but when i heard about Doctor AJAYI and his wonderful powers, i decided to contact him via email: and he told me that i will win and continue to win lotteries and ever since he told me this after casting his spell for me i have won lottery twenty two(22) times so my fellow citizen i am testifying on this forum because of Doctor AJAYI wonderful spell in my life and also to let you all know that he is a God on earth. contact him today via email:


    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) If you want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) If you want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) If you want to be rich.
    (7) If you want to tie your husband/wife to love you forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Have you been scammed and you want to recover you lost money.
    (10) if you want to stop your divorce.
    (11) if you want a divorce .
    (12) if you want your wishes to be granted.
    (13) Pregnancy spell to conceive baby
    (14) 100% Guarantee you win the troubling court cases
    (15) Stop your marriage or relationship from breaking apart.
    (16) if you have any sickness like ( H I V ), (CANCER) or any other sickness.
    (17) if you need prayers for deliverance for your child or yourself.
    (18) if you want to win lotteries
    (19) if you want to be the local government chairman, Governor or president
    (20) if you want your business to flourish
    (21) if you want people to obey your word and so your wish

  11. This is my testimony about the good work of a man who helped me..My name is Olivia Dean. and I base in London.My life is back!!! After 8 years of marriage, my husband left me and left me with our three kids. I felt like my life was about to end,and was falling apart. Thanks to a spell caster called papa Justus who i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I was searching for a good spell caster that can solve my problems. I came across series of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. There was one particular testimony I saw, it was about a woman called grace,she testified about how papa Justus brought back her Ex lover in less than 72 hours and at the end of her testimony she drop papa Justus e-mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give papa a try.

    I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 3 days, my husband came back to me. We solved our issues, and we are even happier than before. papa Justus is really a talented and gifted man and i will not to stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man...If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster to solve that problem for you. Try the great papa Justus today, he might be the answer to your problem. Here's his contact:
    Thank you great Justus. Contact him for the following:

    (1)If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3)You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4)You want women/men to run after you.
    (5)If you want a child.
    (6)[You want to be rich.
    (7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8)If you need financial assistance.
    (9)Herbal care
    10)Help bringing people out of prison
    (11)Marriage Spells
    (12)Miracle Spells
    (13)Beauty Spells
    (15)Attraction Spells
    (16)Evil Eye Spells
    (17)Kissing Spell
    (18)Remove Sickness Spells
    (21) Charm to get who to love you.
    (22)Business spell.
    (23) Find your long lost family.
    Contact him today on:,
    You can also CONTACT HIM ON whats-app on the same phone number.

  12. information that you share is very helpful at all, I became increasingly aware of this.
    Terimakasih telah berbagi informasi yang bermanfaat ini.

    Cara Menghilangkan Kerutan Di Wajah
    Fungsi Ginjal
    Cara Mengobati Gangguan Pencernaan
    Gejala Osteoporosis
    Obat Psoriasis