72°Thunderstorm

Del. Ken Plum: Recognizing the Natives of Virginia

by Del. Ken Plum April 26, 2018 at 2:30 pm 48 Comments

This is a commentary from Del. Ken Plum (D-Fairfax), who represents Reston in Virginia’s House of Delegates. It does not reflect the opinion of Reston Now.

The Commonwealth of Virginia made a significant step last week in setting the record straight on the settlement of the land area now known as Virginia by dedicating a memorial to the earliest Virginians on the grounds of the State Capitol in Richmond. Too often discussions about the settlement of Virginia start with English settlers landing at Jamestown in 1607. While that event is most important, it should not over-shadow the fact that indigenous people lived in the region for 12,000 to 17,000 years before that depending on the archeologists with whom you speak.

How they got here is also discussion as to whether it was a northern route through what is now Alaska or east from Europe. Their population at the time the English arrived is estimated to be about 50,000. They had a system of governance built around 30 tribes in a confederation under the Powhatan paramount chiefdom. They had a system of agriculture, held religious beliefs built around nature, and were good stewards of the environment.

During two periods of history Virginia Indians were almost obliterated. The English settlers brought diseases against which the indigenous people were not immune and superior weapons that killed or drove off the Indians. In 1924 with the passage of the Racial Integrity Act in Virginia, Indians were no longer recognized. That law made you either white or if you had one drop or more of “colored” blood you were non-white. Current day Virginia Indians have great difficulty tracing their lineage because of this law that did not recognize their ancestors.

After a couple decades of study and advocacy the federal government on January 29, 2018 officially recognized seven Indian tribes along with an additional four tribes that had been recognized by the state. Only two of the tribes, the Pamunkey and Mattaponi, have retained reservation lands assigned by treaties made with the colonists.

Last week Governor Ralph Northam led the ceremony on the grounds of the State Capitol dedicating Mantle, the Virginia Indian Tribute monument. The name Mantle is taken from the deerskin decorated with beads and shells that Chief Powhatan wore around his shoulders. The monument is like a labyrinth viewed by the many Indians as a sacred symbol. It is shaped like a nautilus, a growing symbol of strength. The area is naturally landscaped with a meditation area and infinity pool. Learn more at indiantribute.virginia.gov/monument.

The General Assembly held a successful Reconvened Session last week in which the Governor’s vetoes were sustained. The Special Session in which the General Assembly continues to work on a budget for the next two years has not adjourned. A budget that includes a plan for Medicaid expansion for persons who cannot afford health care is likely to be completed in the next couple of weeks. Significant progress is being made on a very important step for all Virginians.

  • Paul R. Jones

    No where in our U.S. Constitution has any politician-state or federal-provided any authority to make a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race” post passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924!

    This whole “Indian tribal” thing is a plain fraud upon the United States Constitution.

    It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for politicians-state and federal-to dumb down as gullible non-Indian U.S./State citizens into believing that they-politicians-can pass common law that regulates from the womb to the tomb the health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens made distinguishable
    from all other non-Indian U.S./State citizens because of their “Indian ancestry/race” at the same time the Constitution’s 14th
    Amendment’s ‘equal protection’ foreclosed the very same politicians from enacting common law regulating from the womb to the tomb the health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries for select group of U.S./State citizens with ‘slave ancestry/race’ all without a shred of Constitutional authority to do so.

    • 30yearsinreston

      The Crown, under English law, did not own the land since it was already occupied
      The only way to obtain title was inventing a ‘owner’ aka ‘chief’ and swindling them to hand it over

      The idea of claiming territory is about sovereignty and does not extend to land title

      This did not apply to French law,hence the need for the Louisiana Purchase

      • Paul R. Jones

        Sorry. Our United States Constitution debunks your post. Suggest you brush-up on our Constitution. Secondly, with rare exception, the Indian tribes lost the wars and with their loss, the land. And, those tribes that did not lose the wars, lost control of land held in fee to the sovereignty of the United States. Period. The United States operates under the United States Constitution and once the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed, they became U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. Our Constitution makes for no provisions for ‘treaties’ with constituency! There is no such thing under our Constitution as ‘sovereign Indian nations!’ There are no ‘sovereign nations’ of any kind in the United States. England which is internationally recognized as a ‘sovereign nation-state’ possesses no ‘sovereign land’ in the United States…UK embassy and consulates are ‘guest’ of We, the People of the United States and can be ousted at any time and for any reason. Our Constitution recognizes no such thing as a ‘sovereign Indian tribes’ nor does any international nation-state! The notion of a ‘sovereign Indian tribe’ within the United States is a political myth foisted off by politicians-state and federal-and Indian advocates to ‘dumb-down’ ‘gullible’ non-Indian U.S./State citizens into believing the myth. Again, you have provided no such authority in our Constitution to support your post.

        • 30yearsinreston

          I suggest you read the judgements of the supreme court regarding the question of aboriginal sovereignty
          Since the Constitution only applies to the US it does not apply to the native nations
          Why is that hard to understand ?

          Thanks for making my case

          Losing a war is not equivalent to losing sovereignty
          Only a treaty which cedes this is relevant

          You still continue to mix up land ownership with sovereignty hence your red herring regarding embassy sites

          • Paul R. Jones

            Again, you have provided no U.S. Constitutional authority to support your post…it is your unsubstantiated opinion. There is no such thing under our Constitution as ‘sovereign aboriginal nations’ in the United States! Your latest post affirms you have no U.S. Constitutional understanding. Secondly, cite your U.S. Supreme Court cases that support your post. Lastly, our United States Constitution applies to every square inch within the territorial borders of the United States.
            If you insist on arguing aboriginal sovereign rights of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race,” then I suggest you read-up on Title 50: Exon-Florio statutes that would apply to your position RE. foreign nations and immediate application of all federal/state laws against these ‘aboriginal sovereign’s including taxation, criminal/civil prosecution, no voting, no welfare, et al, and the immediate deportation for being in the United States illegally under our Constitution’s common law statutes.

          • 30yearsinreston

            Title 50 ?
            A regulation ?
            Applying to my position ?
            Thats your opinion, but that’s how lawyers make their living

            Citing Title 50 regulations is Clutching at straws isnt it

          • Paul R. Jones

            Once again, you lack understanding of our Constitution…and of course, you dodge reading Title 50-Exon Florio.

          • 30yearsinreston

            Wrong
            I have read it in its entirety

          • Paul R. Jones

            Then you have been arguing a hoax. Can’t have it both ways…if they are ‘sovereign Indian nations’ as you argue, then Title 50 is applicable. I have clearly proven citing our Constitution they are not ‘sovereign Indian nations,’…facts you have yet to disprove citing our Constitution.

          • 0.2% Food Fight

            Let’s be honest, it wasn’t in the interest of the founding fathers to include natives or accept the legitimacy of their nation states. And even the treaties that were signed, here and in the US, were signed under extreme duress at war times with people basically starving to death, dying of disease and being killed woman and child. If I put you and your family under the same conditions you would accept the same deal!

            You may be right about the constitution but you are totally wrong with respect to natural law, just as wrong as KP is as he recognizes the tribes right to exist through the development of a casino. What about the Lumbees?

            Without the Cherokee you and your constitution would not even be alive today. Fact.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Your post does not change the Constitutional fact that U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS is a fraud upon our Constitution. The balance of your post is sophistry.

          • O.2% Food Fight

            According to J Jay there is no country and any constitution that would apply to natives as they can freely move about and care about their own business, education and otherwise in the US and Canada (and in theory that applies to Mexico as well).

            It only makes sense. But JJ had his enemies because he was considered a traitor by some, too friendly to the British. And incidently, it appears, the British had a lot of help during the war frim the Natives.

            You try to make history black and white like the paper its written on but its not. What you are promoting is plain and simple Manifest Destiny. Have fun at the KKK meeting, bring your own sheets 😉

          • Paul R. Jones

            Sophistry. None of your post disputes my U.S. Constitution-based arguments.
            Adding in your Ad Hominem affirms your lack of any Constitutional abilities to refute my posts.

          • The Constitutionalist

            You can’t argue with these people and use real, authentic Constitutional analysis, I’ve tried for years.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Excellent observation. When I have encountered such oblivion to our U.S. Constitution tenants regarding one’s U.S./State citizenship and our Constitution’s fierce protection of such in regard to faux U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS, I rely upon Sir Winston Churchill’s note on dealing with ‘truth:’

            Winston Churchill Quotes. “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

          • 0.2% Food Fight

            You picked the right friend (“The Constitutionalist”, colloquially referred to as “The Constipated One” by most), but you picked the wrong quote!

            WC came from GREAT Britain and that alone puts him on top of the food chain! The US constitution and the many flaws you pointed out cannot even hold a candle to the Magna Carta!

            Besides, going by historic records US militias fought their war against the Brits barefoot in the snow, underhanded they won losing many a life and limb.

            And now look at today: KP and his brethren are running what some would describe as a tax cartel, and herewith your whole notion of Manifest Destiny turns out to be a sham and self defeating! Yet the constitution is held up high although it’s broken and compromised on a daily basis by the very people that were elected!

          • Paul R. Jones

            Our Constitution is not broken…it is the politicians-state and federal-who fail to uphold and defend our Constitution in accordance with their oath of office…sadly, voters are routinely ‘dumb-down,’ as ‘gullible’ by these politicians…there in lies the rub. Case on-point is U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS that no politician-state or federal-can support that U.S.C. citing the United States Constitution.

          • 0.2% Food Fight

            Spoken like a true blue blood Cherokee! Maybe one day they ll forgive you, probably when they realize that you cannot have two hearts.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Your post is sophistry at best, no meaning at worst. You have not disproved any of my Constitution-based posts.

          • 0.2% Food Fight

            Although I don’t agree on many points you raised you got me to think in new and wonderful ways. Thanks for sharing your info, I can understand your position.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Our U.S. Constitution makes for no provisions for a select group of U.S./State citizens to have their health, welfare, safety and benefits made distinguishable from all other non-Indian U.S./State citizens because of the others “Indian ancestry/race!” This SCOTUS decision clearly establishes what U.S./State citizenship is…citizenship is controlled by our Constitution and politicians-state and federal-have no Constitutional authority to ‘tinker’ with one’s citizenship absent a Constitutional Amendment:

            United States Supreme Court OSBORN v. BANK OF U.S., (1824) No. 80 Argued: Decided: March 19, 1824

            “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society,
            possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [22 U.S. 738,
            828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far
            as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

          • 0.2% Food Fight

            So now you’re showing off.

            In my mind that voids all arguments you made already, even tho for the fourth time.

            A for effort. KP is proud if you! And thanks again for having me validate your theme.

            Tired one, but good for what it’s worth.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Again, you have yet to disprove any of my Constitution-based posts…merely inserting Ad Hominem affirms you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion you can provide from our Constitution. Your posts affirm you will remain gullible to this Title 25-INDIANS fraud upon our Constitution by politicians-state and federal-and Indian advocates.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Clearly, you have no Constitutional understanding that as of the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of our Constitution…they are U.S./State citizens. What part about U.S./State citizenship under our Constitution is it you don’t understand??
            Read the following SCOTUS decision on U.S. citizenship under our Constitution:
            United States Supreme Court OSBORN v. BANK OF U.S., (1824) No. 80
            Argued: Decided: March 19, 1824
            “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is [22 U.S. 738, 828] distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

          • 30yearsinreston

            Nobody is denying natives are US Citizens or that the US granted them the rights

            Ever hear of dual citizenship ?

          • Paul R. Jones

            No such dual citizenship exist as you can provide no nation-state from which citizenship is derived…there are no ‘sovereign Indian nation-states’ in the United States under our Constitution. It is a myth that you have apparently bought but you cannot support that position under our Constitution.

          • 30yearsinreston

            So why were treaties made with the Indians if they had no standing
            That is fallacy in your argument
            There were Indian tribes aka nation states by definition

          • Paul R. Jones

            Great question. Treaties were made with “Indian tribes” (if you can actually find any such treaties that were duly ratified by the U.S. Senate and not merely signed by some general in the field like General Miles, I would be delighted to read it) until that practice stopped in 1878 or so. And, our Constitution itself made all “Indian treaties” null post passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 as there are no provisions in our Constitution for ‘treaties’ with constituency. That is one of the great hoaxes RE. “Indian treaties,” being foisted off by politicians-state and federal-to dumb-down gullible non-Indian U.S./State citizens about faux ‘Indian treaties’ that don’t exist post 1924 citizenship.
            It never ceases to amaze me that no one questions that Constitutional absurdity including the SCOTUS whose first and foremost duties is to look to our Constitution to determine if the dispute at the bar is, in fact, good Constitutional common law…see CJ Marshall’s dicta in United States Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison, (1803) Argued: Decided: February 1, 1803:

          • Paul R. Jones

            30yearsinreston: Here’s yet one more impartial reply to your ‘Indian treaty” question:

            http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

            The object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external.”

            An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion
            that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying
            Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law (as distinguished from governance of relations with foreign governments),

            [Section 52.] “Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is a law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that
            nation . . . 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the
            whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

            Another fallacious statement is that a treaty “can override the Constitution;” which defies historical truth, as we have seen. A related and most preposterous allegation is that a treaty “can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights”–than which nothing could be further from the truth, partly for two reasons: the Constitution does not authorize any such treaty
            and, secondly, the people are, of course, given their rights by God and not by
            themselves through their own creation: the Constitution (including its Bill of Rights, or Bill of Prohibitions, Amendments). The quoted statement is farcical.

    • John Higgins

      It seems your views are in conflict with Chief Justice John Marshall’s. As in most areas, the U.S. Constitution has to be read as for its intent and meaning, not magic words. Try Article 1, Section 8 for a hint as to how the Founding Fathers viewed native tribes.

      • Paul R. Jones

        None of CJ Marshall’s trilogy is applicable post passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 per Stare Decisis.

        • John Higgins

          You seem interested in the subject. Permit me to suggest a few areas for further exploration. First, politicians don’t pass common; their acts give rise to statutory law. Common law is inherited judicial tradition that has not been altered by subsequent acts of a legislature. Second, acts of Congress do not trump the Constitution, what Marshall (and many others after him) pointed out is that the Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of Native American tribes, just as it recognizes the sovereignty of the states and other nations. Third, the reason for the 1924 Act was to grant the full rights of citizenship to Indians, including protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. That Act would not have been necessary for these native-born people if they were not already “citizens” of another sovereignty. Finally, achieving U.S. citizenship and retention of citizenship in another sovereignty are not mutually exclusive. See Dual Nationality and state citizenship.

          • Paul R. Jones

            Sorry. Your divergent opinion of the Constitution’s mantle of protection of one’s U.S./State citizenship lacks support in the Constitution itself. Post passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, the Constitution is controlling of one’s citizenship and does not recognize “Indian citizenship” as there is no such thing under our Constitution as “Indian nation-state status” within the territorial borders of the United States Constitution from which ‘citizenship’ flows…the Constitution itself forecloses such conditions beginning with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and in the well reasoned dicta in Osborn, Adarand, and Afroyim as well as the Treaty Clause clearly outlined in the text posted below. Secondly, legislatures pass ‘common law’ in compliance with our Constitution as well as ‘Constitutional law’ in the form of Amendments ratified by the various state legislatures of the United States. Marshall’s Indian trilogy was made null upon passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 under Stare Decisis. Lastly, our Constitution does not recognized “Indian sovereign nations” post passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nor is there any international recognition of “Indian sovereign nations” nor any ‘treaties’ with “Indian tribes” as there are no such provisions for We, the People to have ‘treaties’ with other We, the People, because of the ‘others’ “Indian ancestry/race!”

            Your persistent notion there exist ‘sovereign Indian nations’ were it U.S. Constitutionally true would invoke application of Title 50 Exon-Florio statutes as ‘foreign nations’ subject to all of the applicable Constitutional and common law statutes as well as deportation of ‘illegal’ presences in the United States.

            http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

            The object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external.”

            An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law
            (as distinguished from governance of relations with foreign governments),

            [Section 52.] “Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is a law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that
            nation . . . 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

            Another fallacious statement is that a treaty “can override the Constitution;” which defies historical truth, as we have seen. A related and most preposterous allegation is that a treaty “can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights”–than which nothing could be further from the truth, partly for two reasons: the Constitution does not authorize any such treaty and, secondly, the people are, of course, given their rights by God and not by themselves through their own creation: the Constitution (including its Bill of Rights, or Bill of Prohibitions, Amendments). The quoted statement is farcical.

            Nice try though…your post does not overcome the U.S. Constitution’s mantle of protection of one’s U.S./State citizenship nor the Constitution’s tenants.

  • 0.2% food fight

    The Lumbees are still not recognized, in case of emergency lets just make them Cherokee.

  • 30yearsinreston

    When will Ken start campaigning for returning the land titles that Lord Fairfax was illegally ‘granted’by Cromwell as his reward in defeating Charles Stuart
    Oh wait, he was on the Parliamentary side
    That would spoil the narrative

  • Guest

    Here come the CASINOS! I’ll bet that Plum will want to be admitted as some sort of v.i.p., probably have his hotel room compted, too!

  • KP, Chief in Waiting

    The Pamunkey Indian Tribe has secured 600 acres of land in New Kent County for what could be Virginia’s first casino.

    The tribe has not made a final decision on where to locate its planned $700
    million resort and casino, but the identification of a possible site
    east of Richmond represents a significant step forward for a project
    rumored to be in the works since the Pamunkey won federal recognition in 2015.

    The mostly wooded site about a half-hour’s drive from Richmond is owned by a
    limited liability company linked to billionaire investor Jon Yarbrough,
    a major figure in the Native American gaming industry.

    Yarbrough is the founder of Tennessee-based Video Gaming Technologies, which
    supplies gaming machines to tribal casinos. Yarbrough sold the company
    in 2014 for almost $1.3 billion. He now runs the private investment firm
    Yarbrough Capital. VGT was privately owned, until it was bought in October 2014 by the
    Australian company Aristocrat Leisure for about US$1.3 billion,
    increasing its gambling machines in North America from 8,200 to 28,400.

    In February, Yarbrough’s Tonare Land LLC purchased several parcels off
    Interstate 64 near the Bottoms Bridge-Quinton exit for a little more
    than $3 million, according to county property records.

    The Pamunkey tribe confirmed that the transaction — first reported by The
    Daily Press of Newport News — is part of its ongoing search for a casino
    site.

    The tribe will still consider other sites in eastern and central Virginia, but Pamunkey Chief Robert Gray said the tribe intends to move fast on its economic
    development plans and will “bring whatever resources are necessary to
    make it happen.”

    • Paul R. Jones

      Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States to amend our Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?” Provide that proclamation to make your post true.

      • 30yearsinreston

        He didnt make that assertion
        You did

        • Paul R. Jones

          I don’t see an answer to my question from Mr. KP. 30YearsInReston: Provide the Statutes at Large for the passage of Title 25-INDIANS!

          • 30yearsinreston

            I suggest you take a stress pill

          • Paul R. Jones

            Really!!! Now you are inserting Ad Hominem in what had been a lively debate. Answer my simple question: Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States to amend our Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” If you can’t or won’t answer that question, provide the Statutes at Large for the passage of Title 25-INDIANS.

          • 30yearsinreston

            That is immaterial
            Of course there is no specific statute for Indians or aboriginals but there are for minorities
            Which is also irrelevant

          • Paul R. Jones

            Nice try. U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS is a faux common law that you have not provided any Statutes at Large for its existence…ergo, all of the stuff you have been debating doesn’t exist as I have clearly proven and I didn’t leave our Constitution in doing so…it is a hoax.

  • Mike M

    The irony is dee-lish!

    You see in our day natives get no preference over non-natives. In fact the dems are falling all over themselves to “welcome” non-natives. But go back in time and the natives and their rights over the non-natives is simply somehow just understood to be sacrosanct. So which is it?

    I am all for the natives, and I don’t think we should be bowled over like the Pamunkey.

  • Snyder

    Hail to the Redskins!

    Hail Victory!

    Braves on the Warpath!

    Fight for old D.C.!

    Run or pass and score—We want a lot more!

    Beat ’em, Swamp ’em,

    Touchdown! — Let the points soar!

    Fight on, fight on ‘Til you have won

    Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

    Hail to the Redskins!

    Hail Victory!

    Braves on the Warpath!

    Fight for old D.C.!

    • 0.2% Food Fight

      Rypien was one hell of a quarterback, true to his people!

      And so was Marty Schottenheimer. But it doesnt matter, cuz if the hair is stuck to the pillows you might as well call in the baby sitters.

      KP – lead the charge!

×

Subscribe to our mailing list