Part 5—Today we have comic relief: As we constantly tell the analysts, we’d like to teach the world to sing.
We’d also like to see robust attempts at liberal/progressive outreach. Here’s what such outreach would look like:
As the term implies, our outreach would be aimed at people who aren’t currently inclined toward the “liberal/progressive” outlook. As one of the principal rules of our outreach, we’d have to listen to what they had to say before we informed them they’re racists.
If we planned to conduct real outreach, we’d have to consider the possibility that We might even learn something from Them as we listened to The Others.
That wouldn’t be likely to happen, of course, in large part because of the various ways We are.
“Stuff happens,” Candidate Bush said last week. Our team jumped on the pair of words, rather dumbly in our view.
That said, our own team’s stuff just seems to keep happening as our nation keeps descending into the war of the all against all. As an example of our team’s stuff, consider what Rachel Maddow did again last night.
Once again, Maddow played her current favorite videotape. It’s the highlight reel where Kevin McCarthy says he visited “Hungria” while performing other remarkable malaprops.
For our money, the tape is surprising and strange. It would have been interesting to see an attempt to learn what these malapropos might mean about McCarthy in some overall sense.
That isn’t Maddow’s approach. Instead, she just keeps playing the videotape, clowning and laughing—even helplessly dropping her head on her table!—as she mocks the dumbness of Their Next Speaker.
Is Kevin McCarthy fundamentally incompetent in some way? As of yesterday, the question matters a great deal less, but that question was never Maddow’s focus.
Instead, she performed her familiar role as the clowning clown of cable news. She entertained us with her skills as a comic and flattered us with the obvious message:
Those People are very dumb.
Last night marked the fifth time in her last six appearances that Maddow has pleasured us in this way. Every night, we get to see our own clowning clown wasting our time, and dumbing us down, as she burlesques Those People.
On the bright side, we learn to adore Rachel more. But we think a large price is paid.
Just for the record, Those People often are rather dumb—but then again, so are We, over here in our own tribe! If we might borrow from Brother Foxworthy:
You may be pretty dumb if—if you swallowed Rachel’s interview with Brian Williams last week.
Back in 1999, Brian Williams kept ranting and raving, night after night, about Candidate Gore’s troubling polo shirts, which he said were somehow being used to attract female voters. Being pretty dumb, our tribe couldn’t seem to see or comprehend the con which was being played.
We still don’t discuss what Brian did, even as very similar games keep getting played this year. Instead, we sit and watch as our clowning clown, in a whole different pose, hands him perfect bullshit like this on the day when Boehner said that he would be stepping down:
MADDOW (9/25/15): The crying thing about John Boehner has given rise to a million memes, and it is something that people make fun of him for.You would have thought that Boehner had died, Rachel was faking so hard!
As a crier, it is one of the things that I have always loved about him. And to see somebody with that much power and with that much responsibility, and having to deal with that many conflicting crosscurrents all the time, to see somebody who is willing to be seen crying, even at just Hallmark moments, not just giant moments—he cries at the small stuff too. And somebody who’s willing to, you know, sing “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah,” literally, to the press corps when they’re waiting for an important pronouncement? When he’s willing to blow kisses as an ostentatious way of not making comment when he wants to deflect the press attention?
His humanity in the job has been refreshing and lovable. And there aren't that many lovable politicians, I don't think, at least on such a big stage. I hope we get somebody else who keeps in mind the human version—the human elements of the job, because I think it makes the whole practice of politics more relatable.
We know, we know—you think we’ve invented that speech! You don’t believe that Rachel told Brian that Boehner’s crying “is one of the things she has always loved about him.”
(Really? Just one of the things?)
You don’t believe that Rachel told Brian that Boehner’s “humanity in the job has been refreshing and lovable.” You don’t believe she cited his blowing of kisses as one of the lovable things she had in mind.
If you watch Rachel’s evening show, where Boehner has been a long-standing target, you don’t believe Rachel said those things to her multimillionaire host, who gained his millions in the worst way, even though our brilliant team was never quite able to notice.
Luckily, the tape exists where you can watch Rachel do this! And by the way:
If you choose to watch the tape, please note the very different persona and pose Rachel chose for this occasion.
It’s the pose of the deeply thoughtful, civic-minded, upper-end Very Serious Journalist. For whatever reason, Rachel abandoned her familiar pose as our own clowning clown, instead adopting this thoughtful persona to suit this august occasion.
“Where’s the authenticity?” a few of the analysts cried. Being young and full of ideals, they simply can’t convince themselves that they’re constantly getting played by the clowning clowns and multimillionaires who hand them their daily reams of misdirection on their TV machine thingies.
For today, we’ll merely offer the comic relief which emanates from that ludicrous tape. Sometime next week, we’ll plan to show you what Nighttime Rachel said on the occasion, some years ago, when she discussed Boehner’s crying.
Nighttime Rachel didn’t seem to [HEART] that crying so much. Speaking with Brian, Daytime Rachel chose to adopt a much more thoughtful pose.
We’d love to see liberal/progressive outreach—serious outreach to Them, the dumb and unwashed. At present, that’s rarely part of our own team’s approach.
We’re speaking about the ways We are, a topic we’ll look at next week.
The strictly from Hungria files: Rachel unveiled McCarthy’s malaprops on Wednesday evening, September 30. This followed Dana Milbank’s discovery of the phenomenon.
Since then, Rachel has clowned about the malaprops on every program but one. These are the evenings on which we’ve enjoyed the work of our own clowning clown:
Wednesday, September 30
Friday, October 2
Monday, October 5
Wednesday, October 7
Thursday, October 8
On October 6, Rachel was absent, replaced by a guest host. Why didn’t she clown on October 1?
We had the Oregon mass shooting that day! On days when a mass shooting occurs, Rachel drops her bullshit themes and adopts her Cronkite pose.
Yes, Bob. Boehner hasn't died. How dare Maddow say nice things about him with Boehner still alive and kicking! It's an outrage!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, in your careful search for nits to pick, you forgot the thrust of Maddow's segment. To wit: The Republican House caucus is in such disarray that the Speaker has tendered his resignation, and not even the majority leader can get the 218 votes from his own caucus to succeed him.
And don't forget, we are coming to another vote to raise the debt limit on spending the Congress has already incurred. That used to be pro forma, regardless of which party was in the White House and which party controlled Congress.
That is, until the civil war broke out in the GOP House Caucus. Which is why Harry Reid is calling for a clean bill NOW, with Boehner still in the Speaker's chair, before the U.S. defaults and throws the world economy into chaos.
Bob doesn't discuss issues. Bob discusses media coverage of issues. Bob would rather jump off the Bay Bridge than discuss issues. Bob doen't care about issues.
DeleteBob could have discussed Rachel Maddow's coverage of the chaos in the GOP caucus.
DeleteBob would rather jump off a bridge than to actually think and write something new. Far easier to copy-and-paste the usual War on Rachel.
Bob is not a pundit. He doesn't have to write something "new" to entertain you. He is discussing media coverage, specifically about how Rachel is dumbing down the discussion of issues by her persistent irrelevant clowning. Maybe this is not "new", but it is a problem. Do you have a problem with Rachel's coverage of the chaos in the GOP caucus?
DeleteBob was once a clowning clown.
DeleteSomerby's job was comedy. Maddow is a journalist.
DeleteIf Bob is not a clowning clown, and Bob is not a pundit, what is Bob?
DeleteThis is a blog about the mainstream media, not a blog about Somerby. You are off topic.
DeleteThis is a blog about musings. The muser is the topic.
DeleteFucking troll
DeleteSome kids keep the rising test scores from soaring to their full potential.
Delete1:23, I'm not asking to be entertained. I'm asking to be informed, but I suppose you'll tell me now that "informer" is another of the things Bob is not.
DeleteYou know what? Once upon a time, I was a big fan of this blog. Then I grew tired of the rantings about people younger and more successful than he.
Every now and then I check in to see if the aliens who kidnapped the old Somerby have returned him and taken away the replacement crotchedy old fart whose life didn't turn out as well as he expected.
And here I find yet another rant about Rachel Maddow, just like the umpteen he's written before.
Yes, Bob. I get it. Rachel Maddow is awful. And the entire press corps conspired to treat your old roomie badly nearly two decades ago.
Now that you;ve established that, got anything else to say? Apparently not.
Bob Somerby cares. And when he does, his readers respond.
Deletehttp://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/10/supplemental-baltimores-full-of.html
"If we planned to conduct real outreach, we’d have to consider the possibility that We might even learn something from Them"
ReplyDeleteOutreach to Bob Somerby:
You wrote "Our team jumped on the pair of words." How did you determine who "our" team was or is? Who is the "us" in "our"?
You wrote: "Last night marked the fifth time in her last six appearances that Maddow has pleasured us in this way." Is this not Part 5 of a series in which you are pleasuring yourself on yet another theme of "our team"?
You wrote: "Just for the record, Those People often are rather dumb—but then again, so are We, over here in our own tribe!" Is that a display of the contempt you tried to demonstrate the media elite have for the public in Part 4 of this series?
You wrote: "Back in 1999, Brian Williams kept ranting and raving, night after night, about Candidate Gore’s troubling polo shirts." Checking back in your archives, I find two instances in which Williams mentioned the polo shirts when discussing Gore, both in October 1999. How many times in the 16 subsequent years, have you "ranted and raved" about Williams ranting and raving about the polo shirts in discussing Brian Williams?
That's because Bob keeps blogging like its 1999, while the rest of the world has moved on.
DeleteKinda sad, really. Like that guy who keeps wearing his high school football letter jacket when he's 40 years old because that was the highlight of his life.
I find two instances in which Williams mentioned the polo shirts when discussing Gore, both in October 1999.
DeleteEven once would have been too much, but I count at least 5 or 6 mentions of William ludicrous obsession with Gore's dress as discussed below. There is no rational excuse for this other a deliberate malfeasance on Williams part to hurt the Democratic candidate.
Maybe TDH keeps referencing this because nobody else will and the problem keeps getting worse.
*******************************
NOBODY DID IT BETTER: No one was more obsessed with Gore’s clothing than NBC’s vacuous Brian Williams, now Tom Brokaw’s anointed successor. Gore was “wearing polo shirts twenty-four hours a day,” he complained on his October 6, 1999 program. (Williams anchored a nightly, hour-long show on MSNBC, The News with Brian Williams). The polo shirts “don’t always look natural on him,” he grumbled two nights later. On and on the grousing went. Plainly, Williams thought Gore was wearing the shirts in some sort of effort to fool female voters; he repeatedly asked his guests when Gore’s clever strategy would “all start becoming so transparent [that] no one is fooled” (October 6) or (October 8) whether the strategy would “become absolutely transparent when they go out into the hinterlands and try to sell it?” Incredibly, Williams raised the question of Gore’s polo shirts on five separate occasions in one week alone, from October 4 through October 11. And his obsession continued when Newsweek’s Bill Turque appeared on his show four months later. Deeply troubled, Williams asked Turque, a Gore biographer, why Gore would wear such strange shirts:
WILLIAMS (2/9/00): He has become the first vice president to campaign in kind of three-button sweaters and polo shirts, though we’re seeing him in a rare moment in a suit on the screen right now. [Oops.] What in his personality, when an adviser came to him and said, “Ditch the suits,” what aspect of his personality said, “You know what? You’re right. They’re gone. Here I go.”
For the record, Gore never campaigned in a “three-button sweater.” Williams had his Official Press Talking-Points confused—he was supposed to feign concern about Gore’s three-button suits (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/14/02) At any rate, confronted with a ludicrous question, Turque knew the Preferred Press Reply:
TURQUE (continuing directly): I think the aspect was a willingness to do whatever it took to survive. And that has been a thread throughout his career, his willingness to reinvent, if you will, himself and to take on whatever coloration he needed to, tactically and strategically, to survive.
Gore was willing to do whatever it takes. Why, he’d even wear polo shirts—even that! Kerry’s “character flaw?” He owns a guitar. Gore’s “character flaw?” He wore polo shirts.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091102.shtml
**********************************
Bob said:
Delete"Back in 1999, Brian Williams kept ranting and raving, night after night, about Candidate Gore’s troubling polo shirts, which he said were somehow being used to attract female voters."
I commented:
"Checking back in your archives, I find two instances in which Williams mentioned the polo shirts when discussing Gore, both in October 1999."
mm commented:
"Even once would have been too much, but I count at least 5 or 6 mentions of William ludicrous obsession with Gore's dress as discussed below."
Sadly, mm, you count no (zero, zip, nada) times. You quote one Howler article in 2002 in which Bob did the counting for you. In just three years Bob's count had gone from twice in 1999 when he was covering the concern in real time, to five. The final mention recounted in 2002 came in 2000. Bob did not mention that year in today's post, so we did not research it.
We do find it troubling that by 2002 Bob was saying that Williams brought up the polo shirts five times "from October 4 through October 11." You see the latter date is the first time Bob mentioned it. In fact he focused a whole post on the topic and he only mentioned the two instances we cited, on October 6 and 8, which were quoted in full and hardly consituted a rant or a rave. Bob covered it again on October 12 and ran two more posts in the sam, serries the nest two days. No mention of the additional three polo shirt rants in real time. Not in 1999.
I find it troubling because it sounds like Bob may be suffering the same affliciton as another well known scribe, the tenedency to embellish a tale over time. The scribe I am thinking of is Brian Williams.
Bob said one straight week, October 4 through October 11. (that's actually 7 days isn't it?) and I believe him.
DeleteThen Bob cited this,
WILLIAMS (2/9/00): He has become the first vice president to campaign in kind of three-button sweaters and polo shirts, though we’re seeing him in a rare moment in a suit on the screen right now.
This appears to be yet a separate instance. In any case, the men with the net and a straight jacket should have arrived soon after that to relieve Mr. Williams of his duties. This man was a top news anchor for a major network and he was clearly going crazy worrying about Gore's attire.
sarcagian
Deletemm, of course you believe him. There are people here like you who, when you quote Bob making a self contradictory hypocritical ass out of himself, will tell you with straight faced commentary responses that he meant something else.
DeleteAs for 2000, as I already said, Bob didn't mention 2000 in this post. His reference was to "ranting and raving night after night" in 1999, He covered two times where Williams mentioned polo shirts in 1999. Go back and read about them.
http://dailyhowler.com/h101199_1.shtml
For the average Bobfan who cannot follow a link here are the two times Bob told us about and here is what Bob quoted Brian Williams saying:
Polo Shirt Rant and Rave Number 1: (10/6/99)
"Al Gore: when does this all start becoming so transparent [that] no one is fooled—the sudden move to Tennessee, ditching the suits, wearing polo shirts twenty-four hours a day, and now the sudden emphasis on women's issues."
Polo Shirt Rant and Rave # 2 (10/8/99)
"No disrespect to the campaign intended, but you know we've talked on this broadcast and so many others about the fact that he's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him, that he's trying to chuck his notes, that he is moving the campaign to Tennessee, and now we learn that they're going to target woman voters."
Sadly, mm. the "rant and rave" turns out to be mention of polo shirts as one of four examples in a single sentence on two shows lasting an hour each. How many times has Somerby returned to harp on the polo shirt rant whehn he mentions Brian Williams? Now how many times has Bob returned to Williams ranting about the move of the campaign to Tennessee?
Sounds like Bob has an embellishment problem like a certain Dowdifier all of us could name without revealing our sources.
Ahh, but the polo shirts, that's... that's where I had them. Being pretty dumb, our tribe couldn’t seem to see or comprehend the con which was being played. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that the polo shirt rant and rave DID exist, and I'd have produced that proof if they hadn't of pulled the Howler out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to follow guild rules and advance their own careers.
DeleteOf course I can only answer the question the analysts put to me. I don't read the comments.
Listen, I don't know how to break this to you but I don't really care. Somerby's work speaks for itself. I don't have time to go back through the archives right now. To me it is irrelevant. The fact that Williams did it once is enough. Bob is my hero for exposing these clowns down through the years. What have you done?
DeleteBob has covered people not caring almost as many times as he has covered the Williams sliming of Al Gore over his polo shirts.
DeleteI admire seeing hero worship at work. It allows one to overlook many faults.
Bob Somerby wrote above:
DeleteBack in 1999, Brian Williams kept ranting and raving, night after night, about Candidate Gore’s troubling polo shirts, which he said were somehow being used to attract female voters.
He didn't write that he, Bob Somerby, wrote about and documented every instance. So you go back and check the archives and find two instances. Do you doubt that Brian Williams brought up those troubling polo shirts more times than just those two times that Somerby documented? As crazy as it seems, that is hard to believe. I watched Williams during that period.
You haven't proved anything, see?
Well, you have certainly proven Bob is your hero.
DeleteNo matter how many times you rant and rave you don't care, no matter how many time you swear at and then swear off further engagement with a Somerby critic, you always come back to defend your blogger Bob.
Problem is I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was engaging in outreach. To Bob.
But since he is your hero, perhaps you can answer for him. How does Bob determine who meets the criteria to be defined as on "our" team? Who is the "us" who has "our" team? How does five straight posts on Maddow or Dowd differ from five Maddow segments on Boehner or that nothingburger of a bridge story in Jersey? How does the disdain Chris Matthews showed for a focus group differ from a guy who regularly proclaims We The People Are Dumb?
Oh, and the matter with the polo shirts? I didn't say how many times Williams mentioned them. I said I could only find two that Bob documented. But I asked how many times Bob had waved the bloody polo shirts himself since the troubled Williams character in Bob's novel had gone crazy ranting and raving about them sixteen long years ago.
I asked. Bob didn't answer. Outreach, particularly in the "War of the All Against All", is hell. Almost as bad as it was in the War on Gore.
Somerby is my hero too. Those who find him hypocritical, etc, don't have to be here.
DeleteWhy do people who say Bob is their hero not answer for him when those who read him follow his advice and engage in outreach?
DeletePerhaps the response of @ 9:51 explains why liberals do not engage in outreach?
Delete"Today we have comic relief:
DeleteWe’d also like to see robust attempts at liberal/progressive outreach.
We might even learn something from Them as we listened to The Others.
That wouldn’t be likely to happen, of course, in large part because of the various ways We are. "
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-roseburg-shooting-armed-protesters
Reach out you dumb, lazy people nobody much likes!
End your moral squalor !!
Be like Bob Somerby!!!
Stuff happens.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/NinaMehlhaf/status/652527328115822592/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
/// That used to be pro forma, regardless of which party was in the White House///
ReplyDeleteFiled under "gee, I bet you think tax cuts is how we ended up 17T in debt."
Once again attacking Rachel Maddow. Bob, Maddow is worth 100 of you, a 1,000 of you. But I guess you know that and it drives you nut, which is why you can't stop attacking her.
ReplyDelete@11:54
DeleteAnd Maddow 's first date with her significant other was at a firing range during NRA "Ladies Day".
This fact was covered in explicit detail, in full black and white screen print when you were just a wee troll barely able to dribble in your bowl of MayPo.
Delete@12:10
DeleteNow that a Howler lib has endorsed this Maddow trivia as factual we can all rest easy.
You left out the part about Tomahawks. And I am not a Howler lib. But thanks for guessing.
DeleteI am not lazy. I am not dumb. Therefore I am not a liberal. (My morals may be questionable, however).
DeletePeople have to understand that some of us don't like Maddow. I personally can't stand her and I've been a liberal much longer than she's been alive.
DeleteGood for you, billyb. Now can you wrap yourself around the idea that there are some people who actually like Rachel Maddow? Or are they all idiots who don't have a right to an opinion that differs from yours.
DeleteNo accounting for taste.
DeleteI'm sure there are many people (some not idiots) that watch and enjoy Maddow.
Deletebillyb said: "I've been a liberal much longer than she's been alive."
DeleteDumb, lazy and of dubious morals for over 42 years!
Somerby is critical of Maddow for no other reason than she has lots of money, the same reason some people are critical of the Koch brothers- pure jealousy.
DeleteI think wealthy people should never be criticized, but rather should be kowtowed to. I'm a boutique liberal!
I looked up "tendentious bullshit" in the dictionary and cicero's picture was there in lieu of a definition.
DeleteWho could forget the HRC who stood up for firearm owners back in 2008 when she told candidate Obama go pound salt.
ReplyDelete"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO6RtBVQFAg
HRC, April 11, 2008
I know you couldn't forget - you're obsessed with her.
Delete@AC/MA
DeleteTrue to form, HRC herself forgot that she was against it before she was for it. Add it to her positions on Keystone Pipeline and TPP.
I looked up "bollocks" in the dictionary and cicero's picture was there in lieu of a definition.
Delete@Soapy
DeleteCareful. You'll work yourself up into a lather.
maddow is an annoyting hack - has been since her time on air america
ReplyDelete@12:42
DeleteCompared to the annoying hacks the defunct Air America employed, i.e. Al Franken, Ron Reagan, Belzer, Behar, Barr, etc, ..Maddow is sublime.
C made a funny!
DeleteHe complained about annoying hacks on that radio device thingy!
Soon he will be inventing a mirror!
You'd think cicero's "liberal" media would point out the GOP is an insane moral dumpster fire.
ReplyDeleteNot liberal (or honest) enough, apparently.
@ 2:04
DeleteOdd. The main stream media has been railing against the GOP 24/7 since McCarthy took himself out of the running for speaker. Do you only get your news from B.S.' blog? If you do, you are certainly missing out on the latest round of lib hysteria.
I'm tired of people not giving Maddow her due as a comedienne.
ReplyDeleteYou think she should get more than $ 7 million for the work?
DeleteShe should be paid in Necco wafers. $7 million Necco wafers. Please don't waste actual currency on her.
DeleteYes, in true Somerby fashion, let's not forget the pay she gets. Unfortunately, like professional athletes, people who have their own nationally broadcast shows with their name on them five nights a week in prime time tend to make a lot of money.
DeleteAnd you know why both athletes and TV stars make so much money? Because they bring in so much money.
Sad fact, but advertisers would rather spend their money on a show that draws 500K viewers a night than on a blog that gets 200 hits a day.
Bob does not accept advertising. Bob accepts donations.
DeleteOliver Chase pioneered America's candy industry.
DeleteShe's paid that $7 million because she serves her corporate bosses' interests. The minute she's a threat in any way she's gone. She can waste endless time ridiculing bottom tier Republican candidates, but she will NEVER challenge the power structure in this country in any meaningful way. The child-like persona that is part of her shtick only reinforces that.
DeleteWith that big money they've made her a partner, one of them, she knows not to rebel or no more hot tubs.
She is just funny and has funny writers.
DeleteMaddow goes on these adventures of her mind and some are quite interesting...if not factual.
ReplyDeleteShe is much like Somerby in that way.
DeleteMore's the pity.
ReplyDeleteI guess nobody noticed that we didn't find out yesterday what Joan Walsh got right as promised Thursday.
ReplyDeleteAre there any rules at the Howler? Why is this long toother unhinged?
Delete
ReplyDeleteHow To Win You Ex Back
All I have to say is thanks to Dr Ukaka I saw my results from day one. Not only is he very nice, but very professional. He tries to get to your spell as soon as he can, and if you have any questions he answers them very quickly. He is not a waste of time or money, if your ready to make a change in your life He is the right person to go to. If your looking for love I recommend his Counjor Love Spell. good luck and I know you will be as happy as I am with the results. contact him on his via mail freedomlovespell@hotmail.com website freedomlovespelltemple.yolasite.com all call him+2348133873774 Goodluck
Then go away...some of us like Bob's work.
ReplyDeleteTalking to yourself is no fun. Try getting some analysts.
Delete
ReplyDeleteA broken marriage can be one of the most painful things to heal from and can take a very long time to heal. During these times it can feel like the whole world could light up in flames and it still couldn't compare to the pain inside. My name is Nicole Cottrell form UK, I have been in great bondage for almost 2 years suffering in the hands of a cheating husband, we were happy and leaving well until he meant his old time girl friend and he started dating her outside our marriage before you knew it he stopped caring and taking care of his own family to the extent that he was planning to get married to her and divorce me, i cried and reported him to his family but he never listened to any one but to cut my story short i came in search for a real spell caster who could destroy their relationship and make him come back to me and our 2 kids on my search i saw people making testimony on how their marriage where restored by Chief Nwaluta Mallam Zack i pick his email and i narrated my story to him and he agreed to help me and after performing a spell on the second day both of them had a quarrel and he beat his girlfriend up and he came home begging for me and our little kids to forgive him that his eyes are clear now that he will never do any thing that will hurt his family again and promise to be a caring father and never cheat again. I am so happy that i did not loose him to the girl. all appreciation goes to Chief Nwaluta Mallam Zack for he is a Great spell caster and to whom this may concern if you have a cheating husband or wife or you need your ex lover back again. you can as well email him on { Nwalutaspelltemple@gmail.com } and this man made me to understand that there are only 8 real spell caster in Africa.
obat gondongan
ReplyDeleteobat astigmatisma
obat impetigo
glucocoa obat ginjal bengkak
penyebab ginjal bengkak
mata ikan
tinea capitis
Izin berbagi informasi Obat varises di apotik kimia farma why Obat gatal dan bentol di alat kelamin wanita dan pria Watching Obat penurun kreatinin dan ureum tinggi armada Obat turun berok tanpa operasi reading Obat jamur di kulit kepala are Obat abses gusi they Obat sakit telapak kaki bagian belakang young Obat gatal pada vagina disertai keputihan mean Cara menaikkan hb darah yang rendah smile Obat keloid di dada Thank you...
ReplyDelete