Obama eligibility: birth settled?
Overnight, Hawaii officials settled where Barack H. Obama was born. Or did they? Initial reports do not say what sort of proof Hawaii officials offered to the Arizona Secretary of State. And whatever they were, that is not the only question that Obama eligibility challengers have.
The birth certificate
In one of the earliest reports, The Arizona Republic said that the Hawaii Department of Health had given “information” to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office that “proves Obama’s American birth.” The Republic did not say what information the Hawaiian officials gave to the Arizona SOS. They did quote Hawaii Special Assistant Attorney General Joshua Wisch as saying that Ken Bennett, the Arizona SOS, had satisfied him that he, Bennett, needed the information for “normal State business.”
The Associated Press published its report an hour or so later. But the AP stopped short of saying that the information would satisfy Bennett.
This morning, the Arizona Daily Sun said that Bennett canceled a press conference he earlier planned to hold today. But the Sun article has this key fact: Bennett declined to demand a certified copy of the birth certificate. All that Bennett seems to have is a certification that such a document exists.
Nick Purpura, a New Jersey Tea Party activist, is pressing his own Obama eligibility challenge in a State appellate court. He told CNAV that:
If they don’t get a certified copy, then anything that Hawaii gives them is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine!
In response to the Sun article, Purpura reiterated that the “certification of a document” does not satisfy him. He accused Bennett of cowardice, for not asking for the certified copy, and pointed out:
- All that anyone has, is a PDF file that purports to be an image of a paper document. Not one person has shown that the PDF file truly is such an image.
- That file has many mistakes in spelling, anachronistic terms, and other features that suggest that it is not a valid image.
The other Obama eligibility question
The Hawaii Department of Health could have a birth certificate on file, having information not substantially different from the White House PDF image. Such a document might spell everything correctly on the form and use contemporary terms for the time of issue.
But that still would not solve all the Obama eligibility problems. The reason: Barack H. Obama, Senior, was a British colonial subject.
Nick Purpura made this exact point in his case against the health care reform bill (Purpura v. Sebelius). Last week he and his friend Ted Moran filed a brief for an emergency appeal in New Jersey. They argue two things:
- Without a certified copy of the birth certificate, the New Jersey Department of State has no evidence to show where Obama was born, or even who he is. A mere certification that a birth certificate exists cannot serve. (That is
- A natural born citizen must be born in-country to two parents, both of whom were citizens of the United States at the time of the person’s birth. Either or both parents could be native-born, or naturalized, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. But they must both be citizens when the child is born.
Barack H. Obama Senior never was a citizen of the United States, nor did he ever ask the United States to naturalize him.
Purpura and Moran devote fifty pages of their sixty-page argument to asserting that no Amendment to the Constitution, nor any Act of Congress, has redefined, or even can redefine, the phrase natural born citizen.
Lord Monckton’s opinion
Christopher, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley also weighed in on the Obama eligibility issue. He is not ready to say that Obama was born in Kenya. He says he cannot tell where he was born.
What disturbs me is that within 24 hours of [the White House PDF file] being posted …. zitty teenagers who understand … computers had exposed what had been done…Somebody has tampered with that. I can’t understand why that was done. What one can say for certain … this is a bogus document. It is a forged document.
Monckton will speak before the Surprise (Arizona) Tea Party on May 28. This event will raise funds to pay the expenses of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.
- Arpaio posse in Hawaii
- New Jersey appeal
- Kenya question
- $2 million
- Media pressure
- Natural-born citizen
- Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ makes new law
- Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ ducks issues
- Obama eligibility witnesses: Clinton campaign
- Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey
- Obama: who is he?
- Obama birth certificate details
- Obama birth certificate petition
- Obama eligibility battle in Arizona legislature
- Obama birth certificate still suspect
- Obama born in Kenya?
- Presidential succession crisis
- Does anybody really know what time it is?
- Obama birth certificate investigation
- Obama birth certificate fraud analysis
- Obama birth certificate fraud
- Natural born citizen: what that means
- Obama eligibility: reactions to ruling
- Obama eligibility: flawed ruling
- Obama eligibility challenges multiply
- Obama eligibility challenges explode
- Obama eligibility challenges go forward
- Obama birth certificate does not satisfy
- Obama releases official-looking birth certificate
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Executive3 days ago
Biden administration: just say anything!
Judicial4 days ago
Jack Daniels and VIP company go to Supreme Court over dog toy
Creation Corner3 days ago
Oumuamua – object of speculation
News4 days ago
World Athletics exclude trans female athletes from women’s competitions
News4 days ago
Harry Kane becomes England’s new top scorer
Judicial4 days ago
Kari Lake gets another shot
Executive2 days ago
Trump prosecution disappointment
News3 days ago
Macron criticized for removing expensive watch during pensions debate
I sometimes wonder if you ever actually read beyond a headline. Hawaii has supplied a “verification in lieu of a certified copy”. That is all they are legally able to supply under a law passed because of the ridiculous amount of time and effort that was being expended on spurious requests from people like you.
I’m sure it won’t stop you screaming “conspiracy!!!” as usual, but I’d point out that Gov. Lingle, the Governor who signed the bill into law is a Republican. Additionally, the Director of Health who wrote the press releases to be found here (along with the law in question) was Republican-appointed.
And Bennett announces that he’s happy, meaning Obama will be on the ballot (not that there was ever any doubt).
Do you need another source or is Political Wire reliable enough for you?
Aaaaand lastly, via azcentral, here is verification that was provided.
I’m sure you’ll be satisfied with that!
(countdown to next article in 10…. 9…. 8….
We need to add Bennett to the ever-growing list of conspirators.
Terry, would you mind drawing up an org chart of the conspiracy? It’s getting hard to keep track of.
Ah, Hawaii was able to prove to Arizona that Obama was born in the U.S., the permafrost in the arctic is still melting and there has been no invasion of North America by a revived Soviet Union.
Of course, when you advocate as many conspiracy theories as you do, a few are bound to turn out being completely wrong. Just remember in the future that the larger the conspiracy, the less likely it is to work (or even be real). Now, if you want retain your dignity the best course of action would be to utilize logical arguments applied to flaws with your political opponent’s policies. Use of conspiracy theories as your only means of political critique is why people think of you as crazy.
You know that Lord Monckton is a crank who’s been repeatedly asked to stop falsely claiming that he sits in the House of Lords, don’t you? He’s completely dishonest and famously insane.
That is a matter of opinion. And I’m sure the viscount would tell me otherwise.
Monkton doesn’t say that he sits in the house of lords, just that he is entitled to membership. He has an argument that makes sense, an argument based on a technicality. It would seem that an act passed that changed the method for removing someone from the HOL and his peerage was removed after the act but in the method that was used before the act, so technically it might not have taken. I know he took his case to court, I do not know if it has reached a conclusion.
He is kind of a crank, but his argument these days seems to be largely an economic one, about which there is still plenty of room for healthy debate.
[…] Birth settled? […]
You’ve got this laughable pseudo-law in the Emerich de Vattel “definition” of “natural born citizen” to hang your birther hat on. Perhaps you can explain to me why you even care where the President’s birth certificate says he was born.
So, Arpaio remains a clown, eh? You guys just got chumped. Again.
That’s your opinion. But Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations was standard and required reading at the Constitutional Convention. Correspondence from the period clearly shows that the Founders knew about Vattel, and the implications of his definition of a citizen.
Like I said before in a post that disappeared, I will shame you in a debate about Emerich de Vattel’s nonexistent contribution to American constitutional law. Take me up on my offer.
In any event, you didn’t answer the important question. Perhaps you can explain to me why you even care where the President’s birth certificate says he was born.
I didn’t, until the questions started to come in.
But, uh, if you have such a slam dunk argument that “natural born citizen” means what you say it means, why are you wasting your time on the long shot? Nobody contests that his father was a Kenyan national. I think it’s because you implicitly recognize that your Vattel hokum is frivolous. What do you think?
I just follow the leads, that’s all. And I pursue both sides of that natural-born citizenship question.
Here’s an interesting quote:
“The citizenship issue had arisen when a commercial schooner plying the coastal trade was detained because its captain was a black man. The Dred Scott decision had declared that blacks were not citizens, and naval law required one to be a citizen to command a ship flying the American flag. When the question was put to him, Bates carefully researched definitions of citizenship dating back to Greek and Roman times. After much consideration, he concluded that place of birth, not color of skin, determined citizenship.” Team of Rebels, p.674
That’s Edward Bates, Attorney General during Lincoln’s first term. Nothing about the origins of somebody’s parents in there, Terry. Was Bates part of the conspiracy too?
No, but once again you miss, or deliberately hide, the distinction between voting citizenship and Presidential citizenship. What qualifies someone to command a merchant ship flying a country’s flag is one thing. What qualifies someone to be head-of-state of that country is quite another.
Gah! “Team of Rivals“. Easy slip when one has been reading a book about that time…
You and the other birthers are the only people that believe there’s a distinction, Terry. A citizen is a citizen. The only other requirement to be president is that you were born in the USA. It’s nothing to do with one’s father’s status and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You’re the one being disingenuous. You are playing on people’s ignorance.
Why do you think that Obama was involved in several attempts to amend the Constitution to strike the natural born citizenship requirement from Presidential eligibility?
Because it’s outdated and discriminatory. It doesn’t mean he would benefit from it. Obama was behind the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, but that doesn’t mean he’s a gay serviceman.
Outdated and discriminatory, to make sure that no person, except one of undivided loyalty, shall be our head of state? Some kinds of discrimination are necessary and proper to the continued existence of a free republic. This is one.
Why is it such a big deal? Members of Congress can already be born abroad. Your own darling Michele Bachmann recently became a Swiss citizen (for about 24 hours, admittedly). In any case, why not let the voters decide?
The Founding Fathers understood that the last thing they wanted to risk, was some person, having divided loyalties, gaining full plenary command of the armies and navy of the United States.
Now maybe that’s what you want: someone, not loyal to the United States, to take command and turn American military forces into United World Federal military forces.
That’s not what this American wants.
And your “what’s the big deal” is the real issue, is it not? The real issue is that you think that any person, born anywhere in the world, ought to be able to rise to the Presidency of the United States, for no reason other than the United States is the most powerful country in the world.
While Britain was the most powerful nation in the world it was ruled by Germans! We still did pretty well.
None of chhoses our parents, where they are born, or where we are born. As adults, we’re each responsible for our choices and the reasons behind them.
Would you judge someone born to a different faith who converts to Christianity as an adult to be less sincere or more suspect than someone bornto Christian parents by chance? The whole point of having “treason” defined as a crime is to distinguish the importance of someone born a citizen who then betrays that allegiance by choice.
It’s pure nonsense to declare that despite being born a US citizen, the fact that one parent wasn’t (and in this case, the absentee parent) makes the person, by default, less loyal as an adult. That’s the kind of thinking that put loyal US citizens of japanese ancestry into concentration camps in WWII.
Well, if you don’t understand this now, after all my efforts to explain it to you, you never will. I wonder whether you even care.
It’s definitely an outdated and xenophobic way of thinking.
Terry, I know you love conspiracies, but honestly, the ridiculous scenario of a popularly elected evil manchurian president is just as (un)likely to happen with someone of native birth.
To say that being born here qualifies your loyalty is a joke. If the best man for the job was born abroad, why let that geographic trivia stand in the way? I guess you don’t fully trust Americans to choose their leaders.
Do you even accept the possibility that someone born abroad could be the best person to lead America? Do you hate America/freedom so much that you wouldn’t allow him the chance to run for office?
First of all, it’s a matter of being born here to two citizen parents. And all those parents have to do, is make sure that they are naturalized, if that applies, before the child is born. That means that the child has no division of loyalty.
A child born abroad (even to American parents), or a child born in-country to alien parents, or an alien parent, has alienage, and therefore divided loyalty. At best such a person is a dual citizen.
The Founders said quite clearly that they wanted no division of loyalty in the Commander-in-Chief of the armies and navy of the United States.
I agree with them. Obviously you don’t. That alone, by the way, makes any opinion you have, regarding the Constitution of the United States, suspect.
No, I do not accept the possibility that someone born abroad, or someone having one or two alien parents, can ever, and I mean ever, be the best person to lead America. And no, I would never offer such a partial alien even the chance to run for the office of President. Not because I hate America, but because I love it.
And seek to protect it, or I should say rescue it, from the very sort of Manchurian President who has taken over.
“I agree with them. Obviously you don’t. That alone, by the way, makes any opinion you have, regarding the Constitution of the United States, suspect.” Suspect? You’ve got your head in the sand, sir. As a non-lawyer who’s failed to engage in any compelling analysis at all, you reject (out of hand, as you put it) the holdings of federal courts specifically rejecting this offensively frivolous Vattel hokum. You’ve been corrected over and over, and at this point I question your good faith in repeating it. Your credulous and unconsidered “opinion” on reality, as if there were multiple perspectives, is what’s suspect. Existing contrary Supreme Court authority says you’re dead wrong. Such authority is the reason Apuzzo and his pals ought to be sanctioned out of business and and barred from federal court under Rule 11 when they fail to offer any compelling reason to abrogate this authority in light of your silly Vattel fantasy. Section 1927 applies to Purpura. I sincerely hope they’re both dealt with harshly.
“No, I do not accept the possibility that someone born abroad, or someone having one or two alien parents, can ever, and I mean ever, be the best person to lead America. And no, I would never offer such a partial alien even the chance to run for the office of President. Not because I hate America, but because I love it.” You’re so far off here that it’s creepy how strident you get in these unnecessary recitations of irrelevant hokum. You clearly haven’t read Article II in any great detail, yet you’re so blithe in making pseudo-law up. I repeat: I will humiliate you in any debate on the legitimacy of your claim that Vattel stands for the proposition you claim; I urge you to accept so we can put this to rest once and for all.
“And seek to protect it, or I should say rescue it, from the very sort of Manchurian President who has taken over.” And you get claim to not know anything about this foreigner. Which is it? Just how far does the conspiracy reach?
Do me a favor, then, and cite the cases. I will pass them on to a source I have, who is a lawyer.
Are you a lawyer? Or are you just talking through your hat? (I will admit the possibility that both are true of you.)
[…] Birth settled? […]
Who? Apuzzo? He’s a clown.
Yes, I’m a lawyer.
“I wonder whether you even care.”
Of course I care, but the case you present doesn’t persuade anyone not already in agreement with you. Instead of attacking the character of people who disagree with you, put forward an argument that’s convincing to an open-minded person.
Well, that’s the gag. Do you call yourself an open-minded person? Because I do not accept you as such.
Well, I do consider myself to be pretty open-minded, but it goes without saying that your mind is fixed on your preconceptions about me, so there’s little point in trying to change it.
What I’ll offer to the rest of the readers is this:
I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and believed & practiced devoutly through the beginning of college. At that time no one was trying to indoctrinate me or shake my faith, but I was being trained to think for myself. In fact, the best of my teachers din’t tell me they were right – they taught enough about the subject at hand to equip me to follow up on it myself, and to decide for myself what the facts were and if I agreed with how the teachers were interpreting them.
As my ability to think for myself analytically & critically developed, it’s not surprising that sooner or later I started facing the tenets of my faith. There’s nothing “cool” or smug about questioning what you were taught never to question, and if I was influenced by any indoctrination at that age it was the Church’s teaching that my immortal fate was on the line for daring to think for myself. To raise the stakes, admitting that I had problems with the dogma of my faith put me at risk of being shunned by my family – you don’t have to be gay to empathize with the risk one takes in “coming out” when keeping your real identity hidden is safer.
So what did I question? Things like whether the Bible was the literal truth or not, the concept of Original Sin, the validity of Paul in defining so much of the New Testament versus Jesus, wondering which branch of Christianity was more “true” to what Jesus taught than the rest, and many more topics.
Some of those uncomfortable questions could only be resolved for me by accepting the Bible as alegory instead of fact, and once you go down that road there’s no going back. I’ve noted that neither you, RoseAnn, or Pastor Bickel have responded to my points in your Creation Day Six article – someone with an open mind will discuss and debate it, while inflexible minds will sidestep it because of the contradiction.
By contrast, we’ve debated the age of the Earth, and I asked you multiple times that if you trained students in the sciences and the scientific method without providing any pre-set assumptions about the age of the universe or the Earth, what ages would they arrive at if left to figure it out objectively. You knew the answer could be many things, but not 6,000 years, and you concluded that science couldn’t find the answer unless a written history was provided to validate it. Walt Brown claims to be able to debate his hydroplate theory without any reliance on the supernatural, but then how can one explain with science how the planet was formed to be “just so” with pillars and floating plates and some mysterious actor setting it in motion.
Instead of submitting his work for peer review to win over the world with irrefutable logic, it’s easier to declare that all scientists worldwide are in conspiracy since any number of them anywhere in the world would refute his theories with ease.
In case after case we read about this judge or that State Attorney giving the birthers a forum because they are open-minded advocates of the people, and when they reach the conclusion you don’t want to accept, they’re re-labeled within the hour as being bought off, threatened into silence, or too incomopetent to see the truth.
THAT is close-mined thinking at work. It doesn’t matter how many different disciplines of science have correlating results, the only correlation that matters is to the book which can never be wrong, the only findings of law that could be valid are the ones you want.
I’ve given you credit for posting dissentibg views that would never be allowed on Conservapedia, so hopefully this one will make it too. The point of my writing this is not that you or I will suddenly change our outlooks, but that the readers will better understand where these differences come from. Let the readers decide where the open-minded positions are.
What a pity. Why should taking the Bible literally discomfit you? Why should original sin bother you, any more than anyone else? (What—do you think you’re better than anybody else? Huh? Huh?) As to Paul of Tarsus, let me remind you that he had direct sessions with the ascended Jesus at least twice: first on the road to Damascus, and second, in an NDE that he underwent after a town mob pelted him with stones.
You said yourself: once you “accept the Bible as Allegory rather than as Fact,” there’s no turning back. In other words, you are committed to a curious anti-apologetic that I find somewhat akin to atheism. So how can you criticize me or RoseAnn or Nathan Bickel, when you have already gone down the Madalyn Murray O’Hair Road?
(Note: I capitalize words like Allegory and Fact above on account of exactly What those appositives refer to, the Inerrant Word of God, not on account of what you think Scripture really is.)
Your statement about the age of the earth is disingenuous. You probably propose to train scientists to accept without question or criticism the proposition that radioactive decay never changes its rate, and has never changed its rate. Of course, the biggest problem is that scientists these days specialize. With the result that they know more and more about less and less until at last they know everything about nothing. And they also devote themselves to a “pure” scientist that has no “practical” value. Whereas men like Walt Brown and Jack Cuozzo, trained as they are in practical disciplines (engineering in one case, dentistry/orthodontics in the other), realize right away that the uniformitarian-abiogenetic-common descending model will not work.
You think that Walt Brown cannot debate anybody? Put your money where your mouth is, then. His Written and Telephonic Debate Offers are still on the table. Have you the courage to accept either?
Finally: I allow certain views in the Comments section, only to contrast the views of my contributors with the views of my carping detractors. Sometimes when you want to convict someone of bad faith, you need to publish that person’s own words to make it obvious to any having eyes to see.
Perhaps, this comment of mine will help move the discussion back on topic. I’m amazed at the tenacity of those still attempting to rationalize, spin and offer excuses for Obama, when he is up to his larger than life ears with this [his] ongoing identity scandal.
And, then, the mainstream media compounds the problem by proliferating its propaganda:
Mainstream Media Gobbles Up Latest Hawaiian Propaganda of Obama’s Alleged Birth Origin
link to moralmatters.org
Nathan M. Bickel
Why do I have difficulty accepting the concept of the Bible as literal truth? Certainly not because of any sense of superiority – that’s just projection on your part.
Answer my questions posed in your “Creation Day Six” essay, instead, because that was one of the early contradictions I couldn’t resolve.
God sets up the scenario for failure including placing all the elements, and “designs” both Adam and Eve to possess free will but also inferior judgment ability. So they “perform as designed”, and are then punished for this Original Sin. An omniscient God knew this would happen, and being omnipotent could have changed any number of variables to keep this from happening. If you look at it with an open mind, man failed because we were set up for failure, and punished as a result.
I’d prefer to believe that an omnipotent and omniscient entity would not be so manipulative, and yes, petty, so it’s much more reasonable to take Genesis as a work of allegory written by man rather than a literal history.
Paul was not the person named by Jesus to lead His fledgling Church – Peter was, and Paul disagreed with Peter on some very fundamental issues. However, Paul was more active in winning converts among the Gentiles, and as the core Jewish converts were decimated, it was the followers of Paul who survived to dominate the Church and set its doctrine. A case of history being written by the survivors.
Also, I didn’t criticize you, RoseAnn, or Pastor Bickel – I just pointed out that none of you chose to answer my points about Genesis. None of you are obligated to, but given the speed with which other topics are addressed, the silence on this was noteworthy.
I’m also not following O’Hair or anyone else – I’m looking at existence for what it is, and seeking answers on my own. That’s the polar opposite of being a “sheeple”, as you like to criticize them. I don’t stereotypically associate you with people to attack your character, and a little reciprocation would be nice.
As for science, I don’t propose to drop any assumptions on the budding scientists – let them observe decay for what it is, and if they want to explore theories about decay being variable then they’ll have to figure out tests just like any scientist should. The point was that as skills develop in astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, physics, etc., certain correlations are going to come up, and if no one stands there giving them a “right” number to benchmark to, they’ll develop their own estimates on their own.
My question a year ago was simple – if no one is there to tell them there’s a “right” answer, what values for the age of the Earth & Universe will they come up with as estimates? How would they ever arrive at the YEC timeframe of 6,000 years based on observation alone? Your answer was that there was no way, but that such work was meaningless because there’s no way to estimate dates accurately if there wasn’t a written history to correlate against. Most reasonable people disagree.
I have no desire to take Dr. Brown up on his written debate – the preconditions are ridiculous. Likewise, there’s no point for anyone to waste time debating his hydroplate theory on science alone, with the supernatural excluded, unless he has a non-supernatural explanation for the formation of the Earth to set up the pre-deluge scenario. His model is all about working backwards to support the Creation narrative, so his proposal is disingenuous. Probably a genial enough person, but I won’t play cards with the man when he insists on using a rigged deck.
Terry, your requirement that 2 parents be american citizens is wrong. The constitution does not define what it means, but under federal law, it says that the MOTHER must be a US citizen, who has lived in the US for five years, with at least two of those years after the age of 16. This makes Obama’s birthplace irrelevant. You could argue that the founders did not want someone with dual citizenship, or would want someone with two US citizens to be President, but that is not what the law says. Even so, the founding fathers were just men, so even if they were here to say what they meant, it wouldn’t change matters until this issue comes before the supreme court.
The law you are looking at defines an Amendment XIV citizen, the sort of citizen who may vote (when he is old enough), serve on a jury, or run for any office other than President.
That law does not redefine, nor can it ever redefine, the phrase natural born citizen. That phrase is a product of natural law.
You are quoting positive law. Positive law cannot change a natural-law definition.
“That law does not redefine, nor can it ever redefine, the phrase natural born citizen. That phrase is a product of natural law.”
In other words, “We know the constitution and law doesn’t say what we want it to say, but we’re sticking to our line anyway”.
You’re just wrong. Give up already.
You have that backwards. The Constitution has long been, in your mind, “a thing of wax,” to quote Jefferson. The Framers used words and phrases with which they were familiar. The “resort” that the Minor court made was to a source contemporary with the Framers, i.e. Vattel.
In the context of Presidential eligibility, the Framers also wouldn’t have considered a “Natural Born Citizen” to be a woman, or a black person born to two U.S.-born parents if they happened to be slaves.
There’s a time to respect the original context of the 18th century, and a time to act like we’re living in the 21st.
[…] Birth settled? […]
[…] Birth settled? […]
[…] Birth settled? […]
[…] Birth settled? […]
[…] Birth settled? […]