• SiteMeter

Cruz – His own legal philosophy disqualifies him

Cruz’s law professor on birther issue: His own legal philosophy disqualifies him

 

(CNN)Calling him a “fair weather originalist” and accusing him of “constitutional hypocrisy,” Ted Cruz’s former law school professor is arguing that the Texas senator’s own legal philosophy disqualifies him from serving as president.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard whose students include President Barack Obama and Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan, hammered Cruz over questions about his presidential eligibility because of his birth in Canada, which have been raised by Donald Trump and caused headaches for the Calgary-born Texas senator in the Republican primary.

Appearing on “Anderson Cooper 360” Monday night, Tribe slammed Cruz for his “constitutional hypocrisy.”

He argued that the strict, originalist legal philosophy that Cruz advocates on issues like the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage, and which his potential Supreme Court nominees would likely espouse, should disqualify him from being president.

“Ironically, the kind of justices he says he wants are the ones that say he’s not eligible to run for president,” Tribe argued. “This is important because the way this guy plays fast and loose with the Constitution, he’s a fair weather originalist.”

Cruz’s campaign did not respond to CNN request for comment.

“The issue is — do the kinds of judges that he says he would insist on, the kind who would overrule Roe v. Wade, who don’t believe in gay rights or women’s rights, but who think the Constitution is frozen, if he really believes in their philosophy,” Tribe said. “It’s an antiquated philosophy, but it turns out Ted Cruz drops that when it doesn’t serve his purpose.”

Tribe talked about his experience teaching Cruz at Harvard, and how the two clashed over their conflicting constitutional philosophies. “When Ted Cruz was my student, he was at least consistent,” Tribe explained. “He and I argued back and forth — he ended up acing the class, even though we had different views.”

Tribe continued his criticism in an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Tuesday, similarly slamming Cruz’s constitutional philosophy.

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen,” Tribe wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/laurence-tribe-ted-cruz-birther-argument/index.html

CNN website also has video.

Warning on Rafael ‘Teddy’ Cruz

The tail might be wagging, but the teeth are snarling.

Those that think Cruz’s wife doesn’t have a plan or motive. Consider this.

Heidi Cruz

As Rush Limbaugh notes, Donald Trump has indeed made illegal immigration into an issue of national debate. The liberal media and now, apparently, the chairman of the Republican Party, have objected to Trump’s comments about criminal aliens. In fact, what Trump has done is jeopardize a plan that goes way beyond mere amnesty for illegals, and which has been on the drawing board for more than a decade. Simply put, the plan is to submerge the sovereignty of the United States of America and politically integrate the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a trilateral entity called the North American Union.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) calls it a “North American Community,” as if the corrupt culture and government of Mexico can be made to mesh with democratic systems in the U.S. and Canada. It means open borders and more criminal aliens in the U.S.

Accuracy in Media attended a conference on the topic of North American economic and political integration in 2007 which included proposals for a North American Court of Justice (with the authority to overrule a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court), a North American Trade Tribunal, and a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights for North America, also dubbed the North American Social Charter.

The major media won’t report on this because major Republicans and Democrats are in on it. Much of the scheme was hatched under the Republican administration of George W. Bush, but it is now being carried forward by President Obama.

It turns out that Trump has only scratched the surface of a scandal that threatens American sovereignty and would make it easier for millions more Mexicans to come into the U.S. completely legally.

As he takes on the media in tough interviews and holds his ground, even turning the tables on shallow liberals like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and NBC’s Katy Tur, Trump has found one fellow candidate who is sympathetic. Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, “I think he’s terrific. I think he’s brash. I think he speaks the truth.”

But this is somewhat ironic since Cruz’s wife, Heidi, an investment banker, was a member of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, which in 2005 developed a plan for a “North American Community.” The recommendations of this panel included a multi-billion dollar North American Investment Fund to pull Mexico out of poverty, a North American Border Pass to facilitate travel between the countries, and expansion of “temporary worker programs.”

In 2011, when he was running for the Republican Senate nomination, Cruz had called the CFR “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty.”

In addition to serving as a member of the CFR, Mrs. Cruz, a graduate of Harvard Business School, served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Her CFR bio said, “Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.”

Today she is a managing director at the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs in Houston, but is reportedly on leave from the position while her husband runs for president.

Perhaps the key figure in the CFR task force was the late Robert Pastor, a former official of the Carter administration and director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. He wrote the book, Toward a North American Community.

President Clinton had nominated Pastor to be Ambassador to Panama after he had been instrumental in the giveaway of our Panama Canal under Jimmy Carter. But the late Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the then-powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, prevented a vote on his nomination, on the ground that he was aiding radical forces and undermining U.S. interests in the region. Pastor, who had been an official of the Clinton-Gore campaign, withdrew his nomination.

Pastor tried to play down the idea that a North American Community would develop into anything resembling the European Union, which is regarded by many as a bureaucratic entity that can supersede the sovereignty of its member countries.

But the Bush administration was viewed as facilitating the process of creating a North American economic, social and political entity through a process called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The dangers were so great that the late Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus formed a “Coalition to Block the North American Union” in 2007, to highlight how a North American Union would run roughshod over U.S. constitutional processes and guarantees.

Yet, President Obama has continued the process and, after meeting with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in 2014, said plans for a “North American Transportation Plan” and a “North American Trusted Traveler Program” to facilitate travel and exchanges would go forward. The next North American Leaders’ Summit is scheduled for this fall.

The idea of an annual North American summit meeting was one of the recommendations of that 2005 CFR task force.

Jerry Corsi of WorldNetDaily has noted that the criticism of the CFR put Senator Cruz in an uncomfortable position, since his wife had been a member of the powerful group.

“I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America,” Mrs. Cruz said in an additional statement in the CFR report. She also urged that economic investment in the region “be led and perpetuated by the private sector.”

At some point, if Senator Cruz is himself serious about his praise of Donald Trump’s tough stand and comments about illegal immigration, Mrs. Cruz may have to come forward to explain her involvement in the CFR panel’s controversial work.

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/trump-threatens-north-american-union-…

Here is Heidi Cruz’s involvement

HEIDI S. CRUZ is an energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas. She served in the Bush White House under Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative. Prior to government service, Ms. Cruz was an investment banker with J.P. Morgan in New York City.

http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

The Debate and New Englander and Yale Review

Republican presidential contenders Ted Cruz and Donald Trump engaged in a heated debate Thursday night over whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace prevents him from being eligible to hold the office of president.

“You are an American, as is everyone on this stage,” Cruz shot back. “I suggest we focus on who is best prepared to be commander in chief. Because that’s the most important question facing the country.”

Rafael Cruz in typical lawyer style deflecting the issue, negating the law.

Below are screenshots of the New Englander and Yale Review III – 1845

Let’s begin at pg 413 and note the following.

In the intercourse of nations, and in the public law which regulates it, the term ‘ citizen’ is used with respect to our own and other republican governments wherever ‘ subject’ is used with respect to monarchies, and includes all persons under the protection of such government,as owing allegiance to it. For example, the eighth article of the treaty of 1783 stipulates that ” the navigation of the river Mississippi shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.” Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.

YR413

on to page 414

The expression ‘ citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘ natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance
by birth to foreign states ; in the other cases, the word ‘ citizen’ issued without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication
that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members.

YR414

Lets look at allegiance on page 417

Our inquiries, therefore, conducted through the several departments of natural and international law, the law and practice under the Constitution, and the municipal law of the states, lead to the conclusion, that the rights and duties which distinguish the status of the citizen, appertain to all free persons born in a state, and so owing allegiance by birth to the state and the United States ;—unless indeed we venture on the desperate alternative of calling in question that cardinal doctrine of the natural and the common law, the doctrine of natural allegiance.

YR417

That being said, here on page 418 is the law of nations,
We conclude, then, that wherever definite personal rights, recognized by the law, depend upon the use of the term citizen,—whether in the law of nations, as received and applied in this country, in treaties, in the Constitution of the United States, in the practice of the Federal Courts, or in the constitutions and bills of rights of the states,—it applies to all persons, who, being born under the jurisdiction of a state or the United States, or having been duly naturalized, owe allegiance and its incidents according to the doctrine of the common law.


YR418B

Bringing that the Law of Nations and the definition of Natural Born Citizenship into one harmonious relationship, again proving the Constitution, it’s meaning, it’s wording , and it’s definitions were clearly a result of being referenced to Vattel’s Laws of Nations. So what does the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

 

Rafael Edward Cruz was born to a foreign father (Cuban National) in a foreign country. Rafael Edward Cruz’s own ‘Birth Certificate’ proves it.

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael (Ted Cruz) BC

Rafael Edward Cruz is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States. PERIOD!

Wong Kim Ark says Ted Cruz not eligible

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

No. 18

Argued March 5, 8, 1897

Decided March 28, 1898

169 U.S. 649

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

28 Stat. 111. And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case

Page 169 U. S. 703

of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. “A naturalized citizen,” said Chief Justice Marshall,

Reading on;

Twiss, in his work on the Law of actions, says that

“natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience to the government of a country wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit, or cancel, or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is the creature of civil law, and finds no countenance in the law of nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law.”

Vol. 1, p. 231.

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Book I, c.19, § 212.

“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.”

And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance,

reading on;

In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48, Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said:

“Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”

and this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992. .

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.

In his Lectures on Constitutional Law, p. 79, Mr. Justice Miller remarked:

“If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country

Page 169 U. S. 719

with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Rafael Cruz is not eligible to run for the Presidency. 

Thank you Ann Coulter

WE’RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW

If Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen,” eligible to be president, what was all the fuss about Obama being born in Kenya? No one disputed that Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and an alien father. If he’s eligible to be president, then so was Obama — even if he’d been born in Kenya.

As with most constitutional arguments, whether or not Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution apparently comes down to whether you support Cruz for president. (Or, for liberals, whether you think U.S. citizenship is a worthless thing that ought to be extended to every person on the planet.)

Forgetting how corrupt constitutional analysis had become, I briefly believed lawyers who assured me that Cruz was a “natural born citizen,” eligible to run for president, and “corrected” myself in a single tweet three years ago. That tweet’s made quite a stir!

But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.” (Never let the kids at Kinko’s do your legal research.)

I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html).

The Constitution says: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.

The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman.

It was the king on whose soil he was born and to whom he owed his allegiance — not his Scottish blood — that determined his rights.

Not everyone born on the king’s soil would be “natural born.” Calvin’s Case expressly notes that the children of aliens who were not obedient to the king could never be “natural” subjects, despite being “born upon his soil.” (Sorry, anchor babies.) However, they still qualified for food stamps, Section 8 housing and Medicaid.

Relying on English common law for the meaning of “natural born,” the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents” was left to Congress “in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)

A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born — but only by “naturalization,” i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you’re not “natural born.”

Because Cruz’s citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had “any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit” — as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).

That would make no sense if Cruz were a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. But as the Bellei Court said: “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” (There’s an exception for the children of ambassadors, but Cruz wasn’t that.)

So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural born citizen” — under our Constitution.

I keep reading the arguments in favor of Cruz being a “natural born citizen,” but don’t see any history, any Blackstone Commentaries, any common law or Supreme Court cases.

One frequently cited article in the Harvard Law Review cites the fact that the “U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency.”

Sen. McCain probably was natural born — but only because he was born on a U.S. military base to a four-star admiral in the U.S. Navy, and thus is analogous to the ambassador’s child described in Calvin’s Case. (Sorry, McCain haters — oh wait! That’s me!)

But a Senate resolution — even one passed “unanimously”! — is utterly irrelevant. As Justice Antonin Scalia has said, the court’s job is to ascertain “objective law,” not determine “some kind of social consensus,” which I believe is the job of the judges on “American Idol.” (On the other hand, if Congress has the power to define constitutional terms, how about a resolution declaring that The New York Times is not “speech”?)

Mostly, the Cruz partisans confuse being born a citizen with being a “natural born citizen.” This is constitutional illiteracy. “Natural born” is a legal term of art. A retired judge who plays a lot of tennis is an active judge, but not an “active judge” in legal terminology.

The best argument for Cruz being a natural born citizen is that in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.

As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: “It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.”

The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born — except the part about not being natural born.

Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”

Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”

Take it like a man, Ted — and maybe President Trump will make you attorney general.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html

 

 

Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility would most likely be challenged by Democrats

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility would most likely be challenged by Democrats — should he be the Republican nominee — and ultimately decided on by the Supreme Court, according to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Appearing on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Paul said Cruz’s presidential eligibility will be a question as the Constitution uses the “unusual language” of “natural-born” when laying out the criteria for U.S. presidents.

 “The thing is, I think all experts agree that he was naturally born in Canada, and so the legal question is: can you be naturally born in Canada and also be considered a natural-born American citizen, and it hasn’t been decided,” Paul, also a GOP presidential hopeful, said Sunday.
Image source: CBS News

Image source: CBS News

“I think the Democrats will challenge it, at the very least, and I think it will have to decided by the Supreme Court,” the libertarian-leaning senator continued.

Paul said that if Cruz is elected as the next U.S. president, “he would be the first president not born in the United States” — a feat that Paul called “extraordinary.”

Cruz’s eligibility to be president has been called into question during the 2016 campaign as he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Cruz officially renounced his dual Canadian citizenship in the summer of 2014 — something fellow GOP presidential contender Carly Fiorina said was “odd.”

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump saidbackstage prior to a campaign event earlier this month. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

I states this in my previous post.

Ted Cruz the ineligible and the 2016 Democrat end Game

Here is Rafael (Ted) Cruz in 2012

TedCruzDisqualifiesHimself

Trump to Cruz: You’re not a natural born citizen!

Trump knows and explains it to the people. Rafael (Ted) Cruz is not a eligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States

H/T CDR Kerchner

Natural Born Citizen per the United States Congress in 1866

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers