HAPPILY ANCHORED: In the one play we know!


Part 3—That bag of hammers is us:
In her 2003 memoir, Living History, Hillary Clinton aimed an ugly slur at lawyer David Kendall.

Nothing was subtle in Clinton’s attack. Peter Baker recalled the episode in a front-page profile of Kendall in Monday’s New York Times:
BAKER (8/24/15): [T]he Clintons leaned on Mr. Kendall heavily. “He became an anchor in our lives,” Mrs. Clinton later wrote in a memoir.
It’s just like the Clintons to do this!

Before this past weekend, we might have missed the import of Clinton’s remark, in which she suggested that Kendall is Hispanic (anchors are brown) and compared him to an inanimate object, thereby implying that he's dumb as a bag of hammers.

Before this past weekend, we might have missed that! Luckily, we read the comments to Kevin Drum’s recent post about the disturbing term “anchor baby.” As a result, we understood what Clinton actually meant by her ugly remark.

At this point, can we talk? Almost surely, Clinton wasn’t insulting Kendall when she described him as “an anchor in our lives.” Almost surely, she wasn’t saying that he is brown, or even inanimate.

When the Carter Family sang “Anchored in Love,” they weren’t deriding the love they felt they received from God. When Walter Cronkite was called an anchor, he wasn’t being compared to a bag of hammers.

None of those associations are obvious when we use the word “anchor.” But alas! Last Friday, Kevin Drum issued what has come to be known as “the ‘anchor baby’ challenge.”

Drum asked his readers to explain why the term “anchor baby” should be seen as “offensive.” Because taking offense is the only play we modern liberals seem to know, his readers leaped to comply.

Alas! We the modern pseudo-liberals live for such assignments! We’re extremely skilled at taking offense—at finding the slur in all manner of speech by The Others.

We’re deeply clueless—hapless; inept—at all other plays in the playbook.

We’ve been trained to take offense, and we’re eager to do it. Consider a pair of responses to Drum’s iconic challenge.

Bless our hearts! We rushed to explain why that term is offensive—even super-offensive, as the increasingly ludicrous Rachel Maddow super-phonily said. One reader explained it this way:
COMMENT TO DRUM: It’s kinda insulting to insinuate you’re so rapacious as to purposefully get pregnant and have a kid just so you can stay in the U.S. It suggests you see the child as a legal boon, not someone to love. In a more family-oriented culture that’s very hurtful.
The reader said it would be “kinda insulting” to make a certain insinuation. That may or may not be true, but Drum had asked a different question.

Drum had asked what made a specific term offensive. It isn't entirely clear that he commenter spoke to that point.

Having said that, let’s note the general background to that reader’s comment. Over the past fifteen years, people who have discussed “anchor babies” have generally been criticizing the conduct of the parents of the babies in question.

As a general matter, they haven’t said that the parents in question “purposefully get pregnant” just so they can stay in the States—and the term “rapacious” has never been used, according to Nexis. More often, these people have simply claimed that some parents come to the States when it’s time to give birth so that the baby will be an American citizen, possibly letting the parent and other family members reside in the U.S.

(That’s the way the claim began. The nature of the claim has changed through the years, a point we’ll note tomorrow.)

The people who speak about “anchor babies” disapprove of this alleged practice. That doesn’t mean that the term they’re using is a racial slur. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the term is “super offensive.”

It doesn’t mean that they meant for us to think that anchors are brown. It doesn’t mean that they were comparing people to bags of hammers.

Was the term meant or intended as a “slur?” The commenter didn’t explain why we should view it that way. Meanwhile, just for the record, it’s perfectly plain that some people do come to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth to a baby who's an American citizen. Whatever a person may think of that practice, it’s plain that the practice exists.

When a reader responded to the comment we’ve posted, he or she took note of this fact. In our view, this responder helps us see how anchored we are to the tribal practice of eagerly taking offense:
COMMENT TO DRUM: It’s kinda insulting to insinuate you’re so rapacious as to purposefully get pregnant and have a kid just so you can stay in the U.S. It suggests you see the child as a legal boon, not someone to love. In a more family-oriented culture that’s very hurtful.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT: I agree. It’s the notion that an undocumented person is having a kid to “anchor” them in the United States, and hence, beat the system.

It's possible that it could be viewed neutrally—as describing a functional reality—and hence not offensive. But look at the word “homosexual.” That strikes me as a neutral description, but some in the gay community don't like it at all. Why? Probably because it's mostly used by people hostile to them. Which is a description of the majority who use the term “anchor babies.”

In the picture accompanying Kevin's post someone is holding up a sign "NO BIRTH TOURISM!" A couple of years ago there was a big story about a place east of Los Angeles that had pregnant Chinese visiting for about two to four weeks, timed so that they would give birth in the U.S. That seems to me to merit the description “birth tourism.” I’m not sure what the consensus is about the offensiveness of that expression.
In our view, that response is a bit sad, but instructive. Let’s note what this first responder said.

Needless to say, the responder agreed with the original comment. He seems to feel that the term in question is offensive because it’s “kinda insulting.”

At the same time, the responder was vaguely aware of the fact that quite a few people do come to the U.S. for the express purpose of giving birth to babies who are American citizens. That said, his information on the matter is a bit out of date.

In this May 1 news report, the Los Angeles Times reported ongoing federal prosecutions connected to the practice, which is indeed called “birth tourism” or “maternity tourism.” These prosecutions have been reported in the Times on an ongoing basis.

Rightly or wrongly, those prosecutions were being conducted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. That said, let’s look at the extent to which this responder is anchored to the practice of eagerly taking offense.

First, note the way this responder seems to decide if a term is offensive. It almost seems that he holds this view:

If a term is used by people who object to a certain group in some way, then by definition the term in question can be deemed “offensive.”

In his view, some gays object to the term “homosexual” because it’s used by The Other Tribe. We don’t know if any gay person has ever actually felt that way. But as a general matter, this comes quite close to describing the way our low-IQ tribe now functions.

Increasingly, how do we function? Increasingly, like this:

Has a statement been made by The Other Team? Then, almost by definition, we judge that it must be offensive! It’s left to us to invent some rationale, however absurd, with which we can sell this claim to the wider world. But the assessment is automatic.

That’s what happened when Drum’s readers took his iconic challenge. By definition, everyone knew that the term in question had to be offensive—super-offensive, a slur. And then, we invented our rationale:

The Other Tribe was comparing babies to bags of hammers! Also, anchors are brown!

In that middle paragraph, the responder describes a basic part of our current tribal game. If it’s said by The Other Tribe, it’s by definition offensive.

In his third paragraph, the responder displays another part of the way we currently function. When he mentions the term “birth tourism,” he offers this sad glimpse of the pseudo-liberal mind:

“I’m not sure what the consensus is about the offensiveness of that expression.”

Is the term “birth tourism” offensive? Is it super-offensive, a slur? On his own, it seems that this reader can’t tell! Apparently, he’ll have to wait until he receives “the consensus.”

Lucky for us, multimillionaire tribal leaders now appear on TV each night to feed us our tribal consensus. We used to laugh at The Dittoheads for this. Now, it’s the way we play!

Kevin Drum’s readers were eager to say that the term in question was offensive. They invented some deeply inane rationales. But they all agreed to agree.

Drum’s readers just knew the term was offensive. At the same time, we couldn’t help noticing this:

They didn’t seem to know very much about the actual facts on the ground with respect to The Other Tribe’s complaints. We’re skilled at eagerly tasking offense, but we’re weak at discussing the possible merits of complaints The Others have made.

To what extent has The Other Tribe been making valid complaints in this area? To what extent might The Other Tribe’s complaints make some sort of sense?

We pseudo-liberals are highly skilled in finding their language deeply offensive. We’re useful as a bag of hammers when it comes to the rest.

Tomorrow: Concerning the other tribe’s claims


  1. At least Jeb didn't call the Asian birth tourists "Orientals". Now THAT would have been offensive.

    BTW, feel free to explain for me why and when the adjectives Oriental and Arab/Arabian have turned into offensive slurs. I am genuinely curious.

  2. Midshipmen singing "Anchors Away" is now prohibited at Annapolis.

    1. Ummm, that would be "Anchors Aweigh".

    2. Hey, Bob! Cicero gets your point!

      "Anchors Away" (sic) is a perfectly good song. So "anchor babies" can't possibly be a slur!

    3. @12:09

      Homophone jokes are now creating a faction of homophonephobiacs.

    4. @12:46

      Well, it is the anchor portion that is supposedly the "slur," yes? Or is it the word baby that is offensive? This where it gets tricky because Planned Parenthood considers the term baby offensive.

    5. The Cicero of ancient Rome was a great orator. You, cicero, who darkens this blog, are great at obfuscation.

    6. @Horace

      The Marx Brothers spin in their graves at your callow corruption of one of their film titles.

  3. Bob you aren't really saying that words used as obvious slurs in one context must be considered slurs in all contexts, are you?

    I think the strained point you attempted to make by saying if I think "anchor babies" is a slur, then I am required to say "anchor in our lives" must be one, too, is just about the dumbest thing I have read in quite some time.

    Please call up Harvard and ask for your money back.

    1. I think it gets even dumber than that. Bob "seems" to be "implying" that if he can find a proper, non-offensive use for any word in one context, then it can never be a slur in any context.

    2. Here Bob employs a technique called ridicule. I guess you didn't get to learn about that because you never went to Harvard. With the Clinton quote, Bob has shown you how ridiculous it is to assert that using the term anchor as a metaphor for a person is offensive on its own. This despite insistence from the left that they hold a new gotcha card to use against Republicans who use the term "anchor baby" to describe a scenario that would otherwise require most of a sentence to cover with the same level of precision. This makes for a good exhibit of what makes metaphors so useful, and also of how the purpose of political debate is to shame the opposition into complete silence rather than to openly discuss any factual matter.

    3. Oh, so it's only ridicule! Thanks. Always nice to have a Bobfan around who can tell us that Bob actually meant something entirely different from what he actually wrote.

      But I'm curious. Who is Bob actually ridiculing here if it's not people who find "anchor babies" to be offensive, especially when used to say the 14th Amendment doesn't really apply to them?

      Oh, I forgot. There must be a "good, valid point" in there somewhere.

    4. Oh, let's play the Ridicule game some more.

      I use spray paint on my iron lawn furniture to retard rust.

      I guess I can now go to the parents of a Down syndrome kid and call him a retard, and they shouldn't take offense.

    5. I don't think you can equate usage as a verb to a noun.

    6. @12:49

      The American Association on Mental Retardation continued to use the term mental retardation until 2006. Like rust, PC never sleeps.

    7. The American Association on Mental Retardation never referred to anyone as "retards."

    8. @9:18

      Then why would were they pressured by the PC mob to change their name?

    9. The field that diagnoses and treats such disorders changed the name to developmental disorders. It may have been due to the widespread use of the term "retard" as a pejorative. But it wasn't the "PC mob" that changed the name, it was scientists and doctors in the field that changed it to be more descriptive of current thinking. For one thing, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of the American Psychiatric Association changed the diagnostic category (Axis) to Developmental Disorders because the group of problems described all have at their heart the failure to develop normally (for various reasons).

      When people are ignorant of the research going on in fields of knowledge, they may think that changes are occurring for reasons that have nothing to do with why those changes actually happened. I don't know of many fields where names change because of so-called PC. They generally change because of better understanding or new knowledge.

      Personally, I find the use of these antiquated terms in hostile ways to be exceptionally mean-spirited and unkind. PC-aside, why would anyone call another person a "retard?" It is just a very ugly way to relate to other people. That's one of the thing that bothers me about this conservative insistence on avoiding PC -- why would someone want to deliberately hurt another person?

    10. @10:31

      Science is only concerned with the study of phenomena, not with addressing mercurial complaints from special interest groups.

      Preserving peoples feelings from perceived offense is indeed a consequence of political correctness.

      You cannot even describe the problem without saying "failure to develop normally." Do you imagine characterizing a Special Education student as not of normal development, or they are abnormal, doesn't violate PC police regulations?

      Why do thin-skinned people spend so much energy on being offended? Maybe science can come up with a pharmaceutical that can thicken the epidermis.

  4. "As a general matter, they haven’t said that the parents in question “purposefully get pregnant” just so they can stay in the States . . ."

    Sorry, Bob. But that is EXACTLY what they are saying.

  5. I've never heard anyone say Arab is offensive. Maybe when its applied indiscriminately to any muslim or middle-easterner, but what else would you call a true ethnic Arab?

    "Oriental" is just an excuse for SJW brats to yell at grandpa at Thanksgiving dinner.

    1. If you were Egyptian and someone called you an Arab, you wouldn't be offended?

      What I find is that such broad terms used to describe broad swaths of the worlds population by lumping them all together speaks of the ignorance of the person using it.

      I recall the dialogue from King of the Hill between Hank and his Laotian neighbor, Khan.

      HANK: Are you Japanese or Chinese.

      KHAN: I'm Laotian!

      HANK: OK, but does that make you Japanese or Chinese?

    2. "If you were Egyptian and someone called you an Arab, you wouldn't be offended?"

      Well of course I would be deeply offended, because if I were Egyptian, I would think EXACTLY like an American shitlib. This means I wouldn't know that most Americans don't know much about the Middle East and therefor take a simple mistake as an intentional INSULT from WHITES who have oppressed my people for 2,000 years with ORIENTALISM (They actually painted pictures of Egyptian HAREMS. Can you actually believe that?). I also wouldn't know that the language I speak is (a form of) Arabic and that I consider myself part of the larger international Arab community. Yup, if I were Egyptian, I'd be a drooling, mouth-breathing American shitlib!

    3. What I find is that such broad terms used to describe broad swaths of the worlds population by lumping them all together speaks of the ignorance of the person using it.

      Sadly, the federal government requires that kind of ignorant usage, e.g., "Asian".

    4. Uh huh sure, Dave. As soon as you stop using that ugly, ignorant term "white".

    5. IMHO the process of categorizing people by race and ethnicity encourages racism and bigotry. It's reminiscent of South Africa or Nazi Germany. That's why, when asked my race, I answer "human".

    6. You don't have to leave the USA to find a eugenicist who is deified by the left. The Margaret Sanger Award for Media Excellence is coveted by "journalists."

    7. This 'anchor baby' controversy is stupid. We'll never get anywhere if the whole discourse is about gaffes and accusing each other of saying something that is offensive. Is there a law, maybe a law of nature, that prohibits intelligent discussion about anything?

    8. Dave is a genocidal lunatic; he wants whites, blacks, jews, arabs, lao, dinka, gypsies etc. to stop existing as peoples and become just "humans", where "human" means a college educated professional with value, beliefs and interests similar to if not exactly the same as his.

  6. Well, it's an improvement on the category the Census Bureau used in the past. "Mongoloid".

  7. Bob's Typical TrollAugust 27, 2015 at 2:41 PM

    We can't comprehend that what Somerby's examples show is that "anchors" isn't inherently offensive.

    We misunderstand (or pretend to misunderstand!) him as trying to prove it's inherently inoffensive.

    We're so dumb it may be hard to believe we really exist.
    Yet here we are, quite predictably.

  8. Bob, I'm not going to validate the concerns of people who use the phrase "anchor baby." Once they use that term, I know that I don't have take them or their concerns seriously.

    I don't have enough time in my day, to spend it trying to convince that person that Latino babies aren't hiding in your underwear drawer waiting to overwhelm you with their Spanglish baby talk.

  9. Your Rachel Maddow obsession is in getting out of hand. You really should seek professional help about it.

  10. Let's assume that "anchor baby" means a child whose parents consciously chose to bear that child in the US for the purpose of making that child a citizen. Let's also stipulate that this (rather mild, in my view) manipulation of the system is somehow disreputable. It is possible that the parents of a child born in the US might take offense at being called the parents of an anchor baby. Maybe the child would object to those aspersions being cast on his or her parents. But does that make the term itself offensive, as opposed to its use in a particular case? Does that mean that right thinking people should reprimand anyone who uses the term, in the same way that convention seems to demand they reprimand a user of the N-word?

    How about the term thief? Like "anchor baby", "thief" has a clearly agreed meaning. I would have thought it is generally held that it is offensive to be called a thief, and we can agree that it would be unacceptable to accuse someone of being a thief baselessly. But does that make the use of the term itself in all circumstances worthy of reprimand? Is it not generally considered within the bounds of polite discourse to express the view that there is, in our society, too much crime, maybe even too much theft? It may be countered that theft is actually at a low level, that the concern is misplaced, but I don't think our response would usually be to tell the speaker to stop using offensive terms like "thief" and "theft".

    In what seems like parallel, "Anchor baby" describes a well-defined behavior that some find disreputable. But should it not be acceptable to complain of some alleged harm from too many anchor babies, in the same way that it is acceptable to complain of too much theft? It may, of course, be pointed out in response by right-thinking people that this or that piece of evidence suggests that the number of anchor babies is much smaller than the speaker believes, or argued that anchor babies do very little harm, or are beneficial to the US, but it seems to me to be hard to claim that the use of the term "anchor baby" is inherently more offensive than the use of the word "thief".

    1. If someone is being called a thief, it is due to their own actions. If someone is being called an anchor baby, it is due to his or her parents' actions. We have a tradition (at least since the 1950s) of not blaming the child for the sins of the parents. That's why we no longer call OW children (out of wedlock) "bastards." When the term is used to denigrate someone, to imply that they are second-class citizens, it is wrong, whether you call the term offensive or the action of blaming others for an accident of birth (as far as the baby is concerned, since it has no choice at all where it is born).

      So, I disagree and I do think the term anchor baby is inherently more offensive than the word thief.

    2. Yes, if it is applied to the child and not the parents. Classifying children that way for any purpose other than census taking is wrong. For example, using it to form expectations about the behavior or character of the child or to refer to him as a social problem would be wrong. The child did nothing to earn such a label. Labels can be stigmatizing, inherently. There is no reason to blame children for the circumstances of their births.

    3. OK, so let's not refer to any specific individual as born out of wedlock.

      However, would it be offensive for a politician to look at those census data, and express the view that it is a bad thing that so many children are being born out of wedlock? Might it be acceptable for her to propose policies that might change that state of affairs?

    4. So to summarize my take on this discussion: let's concede that calling a particular person the result of an out of wedlock birth may be offensive.

      But we are not really talking about name-calling individuals, at least, that's not where the conversation started. We are talking about whether politicians can discuss issues, real or imagined, that may or may not affect the well-being of our society. There seems to be nothing wrong with politicians discussing issues related to out of wedlock births, and I have yet to see an objective difference that would make the out of wedlock discussion acceptable and the anchor baby discussion offensive.

      I'm with Bob on this one.

  11. 7:38 says it succinctly. How would you like you or your child to be called a term deliberately meant to imply that your citizenship isn't real or is somehow of a lesser status? If you don't get that, you are being purposefully obtuse.

    I think the term is justifiably offensive to those to whom it is meant to apply. Of course, yes, it's use is always for Mexican babies born here. You don't hear much energy being expended for illegal Russian or Polish immigration. It's really none of your frickin' business, Bob and friends, why I think it's offensive. You are free to think it's not. I think you are utterly clueless, but you are free to think I'm overly sensitive. If you don't care about offending me, that's fine, but if so I am free to think you're an asshole.

    "Oriental" is not a slur as such, and that's not the reason why it has come to be objectionable to many Asians. Go look it up. If you want to ridicule people for how they would prefer to be identified, nobody is stopping you. But that doesn't mean you get to be immune from criticism yourself.

    Somerby and Drum have lost their judgment in their need to show how much smarter they are than others sharing the strain of political thought to which they claim to subscribe. When you start insulting your own followers, as Drum did and Somerby does routinely, you've kind of lost it.

    1. Bob, you can't use logic to prove that a term is offensive. This isn't Euclidean Geometry. Can anyone really "explain" why the n-word is offensive?

    2. Interesting item I read on another blog. I believe this comes from Wikipedia:

      A related term, "anchor child", referring in this case to "very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad", was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people from about 1987.[9][12][13][14][15] "Anchor baby" appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.[7][9][15][16] Lexicographer Grant Barrett nominated the term for the American Dialect Society's 2006 Word of the Year.[15]
      It is generally considered pejorative. In 2011 the American Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary's new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is "offensive", similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.[16][17] As of 2012, the definition reads:

      n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.

  12. I wrote the 3-paragraph comment Somerby remarked on. There are several errors of analysis. He writes:
    In his view, some gays object to the term “homosexual” because it’s used by The Other Tribe. We don’t know if any gay person has ever actually felt that way. But as a general matter, this comes quite close to describing the way our low-IQ tribe now functions.

    We know that gay people feel that way. Look at the first entry at the GLAAD page on terms to avoid:

    Offensive: "homosexual" (n. or adj.) ... the word "homosexual" ... is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased

    That's their reasoning, not mine. So go after GLAAD, not me. Who has the low-IQ here?

    Furthermore, Somerby writes:
    It almost seems that he holds this view: If a term is used by people who object to a certain group in some way, then by definition the term in question can be deemed “offensive.”

    I don't hold that view. although others may (and do). I explicitly stated "That strikes me as a neutral description", which should demonstrate that I'm not
    following the reasoning that he attributes to me.

    Let's look at Somerby's remarks about my third paragraph. He writes:
    When he mentions the term “birth tourism,” he offers this sad glimpse of the pseudo-liberal mind:

    “I’m not sure what the consensus is about the offensiveness of that expression.”

    Is the term “birth tourism” offensive? Is it super-offensive, a slur? On his own, it seems that this reader can’t tell! Apparently, he’ll have to wait until he receives “the consensus.”

    Since I wrote:
    That seems to me to merit the description "birth tourism"

    It should be clear that I'm not waiting for a consensus to decide whether or not I should use it and therefore don't perceive it as offensive. I am waiting for a consensus because I'm curious that that consensus is.

    For Somerby to write that Drum's commenters "didn’t seem to know very much about the actual facts on the ground with respect to The Other Tribe’s complaints", yet not know about the perceived offensiveness of the term "homosexual" (by GLAAD et al) is quite remarkable.

    He quotes (!) two statements I made saying that "homosexual" and "birth tourism" are respectively "a neutral description" and "merit the description", yet asserts that I'm confused or awaiting a consensus to decide how I'm going to use it. Looks like Somerby had his mind made up and engaged in a tortuous and misleading "proof" that one commenter (me) is all wrapped up with tribal loyalties and prejudiced thinking. That's why he writes things like "it almost seems that..." which gives him the freedom to write, well, pretty much anything he wants. There's a word for that kind of argumentation, "propaganda".

  13. Bob's recent series is an interesting example of how he, too, is driven by the Trump agenda. Three days of defending the term "anchor baby" against the heinous herd of politically correct liberals.

    In fact, the only think Bob seems to have attacked Trump for lately is using the politically offensive term of "rapists" to describe Mexicans.
    Bob seems to think the charge of "rape" is a liberal epithet.

  14. No behavior is abnormal absent a specific context. That's what a learned in my Abnormal Psychology class. By the same token, no two words are offensive absent a specific context. For all we know, "anchor babies" could refer to some ornamental anchor design. But it doesn't.

    I can see where "maternity tourism" can be considered a circumvention of public policy. Probably accounts for a few thousand births a year. So is, of course, the way large corporations use the H1B visa program to flood the labor market with millions of computer programmers, primarily from India. That, too, is circumvention of public policy on a much, much larger scale.

    "Anchor babies", which, of course, is not a precisely defined term, seems to be applied not so much to the tourists who come here to give birth; rather, it's applied to undocumented workers primarily from Mexico who happen to have children here because...well, because it's a normal part of life. But, really, it's applied to their children that seems to make them slightly less than full-fledged persons by ascribing a particular purpose to them.

    Now, it's true enough that reasonable people can disagree whether birth-right citizenship, or "jus soli" -- something that cane as a result of "Kim Wong Ark vs US" at the turn of last century -- is a good law. I happen to think it is. But "anchor babies" is still offensive and it's used to present the debate in a particular light. If they "other tribe" simply said: "birthright citizenship is not a good idea, because..." -- well, that would be a whole different debate

  15. 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.


  16. My Name is Carol Williams ..I never believed in Love Spells or Magics until I met this special spell caster when i contact this man called Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com Execute some business..He is really powerful..My wife divorce me with no reason for almost 4 years and i tried all i could to have her back cos i really love her so much but all my effort did not work out.. we met at our early age at the college and we both have feelings for each other and we got married happily for 5 years with no kid and she woke up one morning and she told me she’s going on a divorce..i thought it was a joke and when she came back from work she tender to me a divorce letter and she packed all her loads from my house..i ran mad and i tried all i could to have her back but all did not work out..i was lonely for almost 4 years...So when i told the spell caster what happened he said he will help me and he asked for her full name and her picture..i gave him that..At first i was skeptical but i gave it a try cos have tried so many spell casters and there is no solution...so when he finished with the readings,he got back to me that she’s with a man and that man is the reason why she left me...The spell caster said he will help me with a spell that will surely bring her back.but i never believe all this...he told me i will see a positive result within 3 days..3 days later,she called me herself and came to me apologizing and she told me she will come back to me..I cant believe this,it was like a dream cos i never believe this will work out after trying many spell casters and there is no solution..The spell caster is so powerful and after that he helped me with a pregnancy spell and my wife got pregnant a month later..we are now happy been together again and with lovely kid..This spell caster has really changed my life and i will forever thankful to him..he has helped many friends too with similar problem too and they are happy and thankful to him..This man is indeed the most powerful spell caster have ever experienced in life..Am Posting this to the Forum in case there is anyone who has similar problem and still looking for a way out..you can reach him here:Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com... CONTACT THIS GREAT AND POWERFUL SPELL CASTER CALLED Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com ... HIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS :Dr.jartospellcaster@gmail.com.. CONTACT HIM NOW AND BE FAST ABOUT IT SO HE CAN ALSO ATTEND TO YOU BECAUSE THE EARLIER YOU CONTACT HIM NOW THE BETTER FOR YOU TO GET QUICK SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS.


  17. My name is Melissa Vivian,I base in USA,Texas..My life is back!!! After 2 years of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids . I felt like my life was about to end i almost committed suicide, i was emotionally down for a very long time. Thanks to a spell caster called Dr Oduma, which i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet,I came across allot of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb,cure cancer,and other sickness, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. i also come across one particular testimony,it was about a woman called Sonia,she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days, and at the end of her testimony she dropped Dr ODUMA's e-mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give it a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We solved our issues, and we are even happier than before Dr ODUMA , is really a gifted man and i will not 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 all your problems for you. Try High odumaspelltemple0@gmail.com anytime, he might be the answer to your problems. Here's his contact: odumaspelltemple0@gmail.com You can also call him or text him here: +2349067801825

  18. Are you in need of Loan? Here all problem regarding Loans is solve between a short period of time what are you waiting for apply now and solve your problem or start a business with funds Contact us now. many more 2% interest rate.(Whats App) number +919394133968 patialalegitimate515@gmail.com
    Mr Sorina