THE ART OF THE CON: The insanity style in American politics!

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2016

Part 2—It didn't start with Trump:
Could Republican candidate Donald J. Trump win November's election?

Yes, we think he plainly could. He could also lose badly, of course. But yes, we think he could win.

Last night, on CNN, former Obama aide Van Jones begged Democrats and liberals to understand the troubling fact that Donald J. Trump could win. We think Jones' assessment is correct. In part, here's why we say that:

Candidate Clinton is the likely Democratic nominee. She's also badly damaged. It's amazing how badly she is damaged, compared to the way she was perceived when she ran for the White House eight years ago.

She has been badly damaged by the email matter. She has been badly damaged by the speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. Before that, she was damaged by the deal the New York Times struck with conservative hackster Peter Schweizer. Therein lies a tale:

The fruit of that collaboration was the Times' ludicrous, ginormous report about the scary uranium deal—the scary deal with the Russkies, or with someone like that. It was a thoroughly ludicrous piece of journalism, the dumbest report of 2015; it also ran 4400 words. On his TV program, Chris Hayes hailed the hapless report as "a bombshell." But this is the way our hapless tribe now plays on the corporate end.

Candidate Clinton is badly damaged. Just for the record, this damage extends inside the tents of the Obama coalition. Within those tents, Candidate Clinton is being damaged by discussions of the 1994 crime bill, and by discussions of the 1990s in general. In other ways, she is being badly damaged by elements of the Sanders campaign.

For the record, she could be damaged much more badly by future events in the email probe. She could be damaged by a single speech, comment or leak from FBI head James Comey, who fits the description for such a possibility—he's a stiff-necked Republican nominee with a reputation for probity.

Comey's judgment could come in good or bad faith. Either way, it could produce major damage.

(During the 2000 campaign, Candidate Gore was being investigated by other figures who fit that description. Very few liberals remember this fact; our tribe has agreed that the basic events of Campaign 2000 must never be discussed, largely because so many of our tribal leaders played such horrible roles within them. We restrict our small helpless minds to the events of the Florida recount, concerning which we tell ourselves the types of tales we love to hear. As a a result, we wander toward this year's general election clueless about what might come.)

Candidate Clinton is badly damaged. Like Van Jones, we know of no reason to feel sure that Donald J. Trump couldn't beat her. As you know, he was prescient about the war in Iraq! Why wouldn't people decide to vote for someone like that?

Meanwhile, what could happen if Candidate Sanders gets nominated? Concerning that question, Michelle Goldberg has provided a service at Slate.

Goldberg's headline imagines the future: "This Is What a Republican Attack on Bernie Sanders Would Look Like." In her report, Goldberg describes the kinds of attack a Trump campaign would direct at a Candidate Sanders.

Below, we offer you a small taste. By the way, have you ever heard of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party? According to Goldberg, if Candidate Sanders is nominated, you and your neighbors will:
GOLDBERG (5/2/16): [Sanders] has never been asked to account for his relationship with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, for which he served as a presidential elector in 1980. At the time, the party’s platform called for abolishing the U.S. military budget and proclaimed “solidarity” with revolutionary Iran. (This was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis.) There’s been little cable news chatter about Sanders’ 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die.” It would be nice if this were due to a national consensus on the criminal nature of America’s support for the Contras. More likely, the media’s attention has simply been elsewhere.
For ourselves, we've always worried about potential GOP treatment of the honeymoon to the Soviet Union and the spoken folk music album. The Trotskyist Part isn't likely to help. Other parts of Goldberg's roll call of political horribles may be even worse.

By traditional norms of American politics, Candidate Trump can't get elected. Of course, by those same traditional norms, neither can Candidate Sanders—and Candidate Clinton is damaged goods and a gaffe machine who is loathed in wide swaths of the press.

In last Sunday's column, George Will urged his fellow conservatives to defeat Trump in all fifty states. Theoretically, that could happen. But Trump could also win.

These possibilities all take form within a new moment in American politics—within a moment in which insanity, or near-insanity, is becoming an established norm.

Yesterday afternoon, Candidate Trump almost sort of told the world that his opponent's father was the gunman on the grassy knoll, the man who shot JFK. By the time we reach the general election, he may be saying that his opponent probably killed J. R.

There is no sign that craziness of that general type would keep Trump from the White House. Yesterday's crazy statement about Lee Harvey Oswald has largely passed without notice.

Of course, even as Trump is making such statements, the nation's most famous and smartest newspaper keeps saying that the brilliant fellow was prescient concerning Iraq. The claim is false, but the New York Times said it three times in eight days, with barely a peep of rejoinder from the silly, self-impressed hustlers so prevalent within our own tents.

Trump wrote a book called The Art of the Deal. His invention of that fact about Iraq helps display the art of the con. This particular con about Iraq may help him win the White House this fall. That said, let's return to his craziness, which is tied to the art of the con:

Trump's claim about Cruz and JFK helps define an emerging insanity-laced political style. We'll only note two point:

Donald J. Trump didn't invent that style; within our media elites, it has been in development for decades now. Meanwhile, grabbers and climbers like Maddow and Hayes don't intend to use their skills to teach you how to defeat it. Such things simply aren't done.

The insanity style has been spreading for years; so has the art of the con. The cons have been coming from outside our tents, but also from deep within them.

Tomorrow: Who's zoomin' who?

73 comments:

  1. As usual, Bob resorts to Maddow bashing for no good reason other than his obsessive hatred for an intelligent gay woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All he did was call her a grabber and a climber. And he called Chris Hayes the same thing. Your defense of people like this is what got millions of Iraqi's shot and bombed dead while our tribe slept in the woods.

      Delete
    2. Yes, of all the journalists to bash Maddow and Hayes have the least offenses.

      Delete
    3. Unless you ignore their role in damaging Clinton's chances of defeating Trump. They are among the most visible liberal pundits so they may contribute most to Clinton's defeat in the Fall through their dalliance with Bernie and their unwillingness to call out Trump's lies, and their disproportionate attention to Trump early on which helped him win the Republican nomination.

      Delete
    4. @5:18

      FNC's Charles Krauthammer routinely calls out Trump. Why can't RM call out HRC? Why can't liberals prefer Bernie to HRC? How fast did you drop HRC when Obama came on the scene in 2008?

      Delete
    5. Other than Foxbats, who cares what Krauthammer says? Why should she? Why would they? How irrelevant and immaterial the 2008 presidential election is to the current election?

      Part 1 of easy answers to stupid questions.

      Delete
    6. " Your defense of people like this is what got millions of Iraqi's shot and bombed dead while our tribe slept in the woods."

      I don't recall Maddow (or Hayes) having shows back then. But you miss the point. BS has a pathological hatred for Maddow. A day can't go by that he doesn't take a shot at her and it only serves to discredit him.

      Delete
    7. "Unless you ignore their role in damaging Clinton's chances of defeating Trump."

      But why does BS attack Maddow almost daily while virtually ignoring Joe Scarborough who has been unfairly attacking Clinton while sucking up to Trump for months. But that would require BS to go after a fellow conservative southern man instead of a gay liberal woman.

      Delete
    8. Joe Scarborough is not a liberal. Maddow and Hayes are. People listening will discount what Scarborough says because of his political affiliation. They will take Maddow and Hayes more seriously because criticisms coming from a liberal about a liberal will be seen as more truthful, less politically motivated. That is why Maddow and Hayes can do more damage than Scarborough. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

      Delete
    9. Who are you reading? Bob routinely calls out Joe as being horrible.

      Delete
    10. Routinely??? Who are you reading? You can count on you hands the number of posts going after Scarborough versus the almost daily attacking of Maddow.

      Delete
    11. "How many times do I have to explain this to you?"

      Sorry but it is impossible to explain illogic and bs rationalization.

      Delete
    12. Dave the Guitar PlayerMay 5, 2016 at 1:13 PM

      Anon 11:44 - There are none so blind as those who will not see.

      Delete
  2. "Chris Hayes hailed the hapless report as "a bombshell.""

    Bob Somerby has made note of Hayes use of this word almost every time he has covered the article in question. Unfortunately Bob does not tell his readers that Hayes often uses that phrase regardless of whether he thinks an article is good or bad or has merit or does not. He used the same term to describe the Times articles detailing the "criminal" investigation of Clinton's e-mails which was filled with errors and required multiple corrections, and Hayes noted the errors in that piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and Bob himself often uses the term "ginormous". He uses it "millions" of times, almost as often as the "million fact-checkers have noted by now, there is zero evidence that Donald J. Trump opposed the war in Iraq."

      Delete
    2. "Hayes noted the errors in that piece"

      And what about this one? Links or you're full of it.

      Delete
    3. "Hayes noted the errors in that piece"

      Sure he did. Let us recall how he dealt with it. First by vouching for the "brilliance" of the reporters who completely fabricated the false story.

      HAYES: In this case, you have got two reporters. I think it’s Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo, if I’m not mistaken, both of who are fantastic reporters, in my humble opinion, great reporters. This time, it seems, they got this wrong.

      Then Hayes proceeds to deny the inarguable evidence that the NY Times has a long history of going after the Clintons unfairly.


      *******************
      Before allowing his guest to opine, Hayes offered his own “theory of the case.” When he did, a PR firm couldn’t have pushed the New York Times’ greatness much harder.

      Hayes’ theory denied any animus, or “pattern and practice,” within the New York Times. He advanced a set of ideas which may be right or may be wrong. But he was praising the greatness of the Times more than the Times had itself.

      The (youngish) reporters who bungled the front-page report are “fantastic” and “great,” Hayes said. He continued with his dismissive framework, referring to the front-page debacle as a report “you guys don’t like.”

      It fell to Boehlert to challenge the framework. “It’s not that we don’t like it,” he said. “It’s not accurate,” Boehlert was forced to note.
      ****************** http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/08/23-years-later-chris-hayes-lives-dan.html

      Yeah, that Hayes is a real champ.


      Delete
    4. mm July 24, 2015 at 10:46 AM

      "Then The irony is the only email accounts that were hacked and compromised were the State Departments and the WH accounts."

      Oops!

      Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy'

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html?intcmp=hpbt1

      Delete
    5. It's disingenuous to report a claim as fact--hence the link to Fox news obviously.

      Guccifer's claim is unverified, and there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. the server logs).
      Guccifer is in Federal custody which also makes his motives suspect.

      Delete
    6. @7:46

      First off, FNC's Catherine Herridge is the leading journalist (if not the only journalist covering the story) on HRC's private server and emails. You imagine that it is to Guccifer's benefit to lie about hacking HRC's email while he is in the custody of Obama's DOJ? Explain that? You believe that HRC's private server is impenetrable but not The White House and Foggy Bottom emails? Ok....

      Delete
    7. First off, only Foxzombies consider Herridge anything other than the usual GOP shill. No legit cite Re: Guccifer, so its just a troll repeating nonsense from a known GOP shill. Nothing to explain since the prove up is on you. I believe that you are a sociopathic troll - probably for pay since you stain this combox the day after Teddy folds his tent and skulks off - with nothing but tired and played HRC-email bullshit and useless speculation. Thanks for playing.

      Part 2 of easy questions to stupid questions/assertions.

      Delete
    8. cicero,

      Congrats, your party just nominated a carnival barker to run for president.


      **************************************
      An internal FBI review of Clinton’s email records did not indicate traces of hacking, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-email-server-hacker-222824#ixzz47mOsoDFD
      Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
      ***************************************

      Delete
    9. mm...I just noted you comment @ 1:19 yesterday.

      You do realize what a complete act of follishness it is to use a Bob Somerby post to refute someone who doubts Somerby's judgement?

      Delete
    10. @GG
      For someone who gets their news from Media Matters/Correct The record it is hysterical you consider Catherine Herridge an unreliable reporter. A graduate of Harvard and Columbia school of journalism, she actually filed a lawsuit against FNC for discrimination in 2010. So much for your GOP shill inanities. Not to mention Herridge says in her report that you obviously didn't read, "Fox News could not independently confirm Lazar’s claims" The proof is in the hands of the FBI.

      Delete
    11. Like you didn't read the report you posted about Nate Silver yesterday, portraying Allan Smith's headline as an actual quote from Nate Silver!

      Delete
    12. @11:41

      Never attributed the quote to Nate Silver. Posted the link and the headline. The point is valid. Ole Nate didn't predict Trump would be the nominee long before the convention.

      Delete
    13. 10:42am;

      TDH didn't make up the exact quotes by Hayes taken from the transcripts.

      You're welcome to interpret them any way that pleases you. However, we should all agree with the irrefutable facts, unless you are a Wingnut inhabiting an alternate reality.

      I happen to agree with TDH's take on the matter. I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of the sad embarrassing performance by Mr. Hayes that night.
      And he certainly did not go out of his way to "note the errors" in that NY Times piece.

      You haven't really made a logical argument for a reasonable alternative interpretation however.

      Delete
    14. Catherine Herridge's integrity is easily assailed. Her reporting is awful, she relentlessly makes baseless and false accusations without ever issuing corrections.

      cicero her lawsuit was a joke, it was just to obtain leverage for her on contact negotiations. She wanted a 96% pay raise and when Fox refused she claimed discrimination. The lawsuit was dismissed by a judge for having no merit, and Herridge did sign a contract with Fox for a much smaller raise, although she is actually one of their highest paid cast members. My supposition is that if she was going to debase herself by generating attack ads against Hillary Clinton disguised as news reports, she wanted to be well compensated because her reputation is she's a clown.

      Delete
    15. @9:02

      Considering Bernstein & Woodward pursued the Watergate story, they must win the Emmett Kelly award for clowning. It would libs are all for journalists covering scandals concerning Republican POTUS, not so much when the target is the Democratic Party candidate for POTUS.

      Now if you could link to these false accusations Herridge has reported regarding the Benghazi scandal or the private server scandal your post might actually have a smidgeon of truth.

      Delete
  3. I am sad to say that both Anon. @ 10:07, and 10: 51 cannot see the forest for the trees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "our tribe has agreed that the basic events of Campaign 2000 must never be discussed"

      Delete
  4. Bob might have mentioned that Trump didn't make up that story about Cruz's father. It came from the National Enquirer. That's not a reliable source, I know. But, quoting any source is different from making somehing up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's the Daily Stormer's take on the claim, David?

      Delete
    2. Joseph Cannon debunked it a few days before Trump latched onto it. He is a follower of JFK conspiracy theories so he knows this stuff inside-out.

      Delete
    3. @DiC

      Trump is good buddies with Enquirer CEO David Pecker (his actual name). The tabloid has endorsed Trump for POTUS. The first time the Enquirer has ever endorsed a presidential candidate. That Trump actually buys into Cruz's dad being in on the JFK assassination is bizarre. That he brought it up when he was trouncing Cruz in Indiana is just dim-witted.

      Delete
    4. David in Cal: since when did you ever care about the reliability of a source rather than to make one fit your preconceived conclusion?

      @ 6:27 PM - the only person who cares about your dimwitted National Enquirer knowledge is you.

      Delete
  5. Wow, those comments in the Slate article are something else. You'd have to be pretty delusional to think the RNC wouldn't have a fucking field day with that stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They'll have a field day with his tax proposals.

      Delete
    2. The media has given Bernie a pass on his crazy budget proposals. Somerby has given the media a pass for passing on covwerage of Sander's budget proposals.

      Delete
    3. 10;54 AM,
      The media has zero understanding of economics. Bernie's budget proposals aren't "crazy', unless you think the "crazy" part is that Congress won't allow Bernie's budget proposals to pass because they ruin the long con.

      People who understand economics know Bernie's budget proposals aren't "crazy" in the least.

      Delete
  6. HRC is both damaged and for the future damageable ( okay, not a word but it's future damage). Trump has yoooge negatives in some polls as much as 70%. (See fivethirtyeight.com) Also see Sam Wang's Princeton site.
    Wang thinks the polls have predictive power and Trump loses to Hillary and also to Bernie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if her unfavorables prove how damaged she is -- to the point that she "could" lose to a guy far worse unfavorables -- how did she ever beat the very likable Bernie?

      And, beat him rather easily.

      Delete
    2. Unfavorables are not about likeability.

      Bernie isn't very likeable to a lot of us, with his arm-waving, interrupting, lecturing and one-note harangues. But Bernie undid whatever positives he had when he went negative and broke his own promises.

      Delete
    3. @6:04

      HRC supporters find her cackle at the most inopportune moments and her failed stunts illustrating her unfamiliarity with NYC subway just charming?

      Delete
    4. As usual, you pull a Breitbart stale cookie out of your ass in the vain hope that you can draw a chuckle.

      Delete
    5. Stale? HRC's goofy attempt to get on the NYC subway occurred last month. No doubt you will appreciate this SNL take on turnstile Hillary.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yhh5zxyvGo

      Delete
  7. When is Bob going to do a diatribe on the Morning Joe Show (JOE SCARBOROUGH). Joe denigrates the liberals constantly, with no push back from anyone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe is not a liberal pundit. People discount this stuff when it comes from Republicans or conservatives. They swallow it whole when it comes from our side.

      Delete
    2. Yes!!!! Bob readers swallow his denigration of liberals wole.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 5:23 PM - is the sky blue in your world?

      Delete
    4. BS would never attack a fellow white male southern conservative.

      Delete
    5. "Joe is not a liberal"

      And neither is Bob.

      Delete
    6. Dave the Guitar PlayerMay 5, 2016 at 1:29 PM

      Anon 11:45 - Maybe Bob is not a "liberal", but would that make his criticism of clowns like Maddow less valid? Are you saying liberals don't do anything worth criticizing? Who exactly would you say is the leading "liberal" critic of liberal media types?

      Delete
  8. Well, I guess there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious once in awhile, but Bob really mines it for a whole post here. Yes, Trump is a nut, and he has the nomination of one of our two major political parties. Yes it is depressing and scary. And yes, technically it's possible he even could win.
    At least he didn't claim Trump sprung whole from the liberal left again. I have a feeling we will hear that sad refrain again before this is over.
    The really sad part of it, I think, is that said claim is not COMPLETELY wrong. Trump represents a new level of unseriousness that plagues us. Here, there is a least substantial blame to go around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about building an entire post on a foundation that says absolutely nothing.

      "Yes, we think he plainly could. He could also lose badly, of course. But yes, we think he could win."

      Only Somerby thinks that's brilliant.

      Delete
  9. Nate Silver (538) agrees with Somerby. Here is his take on Trump's victory:

    "Updated post-Trump priors:
    1. Voters are more tribal than I thought.
    2. GOP is weaker than I thought.
    3. Media is worse than I thought."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @6:06

      What does Nate say about the GOP settling on their candidate after 17 opponents while HRC is still battling the socialist Sanders?
      1. HRC is weaker than he thought?
      2. Even Bill Clinton can't help his bride
      3. Liberal voters prefer hexagenarian
      and hepta/septuagenarian?

      Delete
    2. He puts the likelihood of Clinton winning the nomination at 97%. She is not battling against Sanders. She is running against Trump now.

      Delete
    3. @10:03

      You mean this Nate Silver?

      "NATE SILVER: Donald Trump's chances of locking up the nomination appear to be dwindling."

      http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-donald-trump-projection-odds-2016-4

      Delete
    4. Do you read what you cite? That supposed quote doesn't appear anywhere in it. It is the headline given by the author of the piece, Allan Smith.

      Nate Silver was talking about reaching 1237 delegates before the convention. The only quote in the piece says that if Trump doesn't win big in Indiana he can make up the numbers needed in California.

      But yes, I mean that Nate Silver.

      Delete
    5. @11:38

      Ole Nate didn't predict Trump would be the nominee long before the convention.

      Delete
  10. Hillary Clinton is a gaffe machine?????
    I thought the knock on her was that she's so tightly scripted and robotic? Now, she's Joe Biden?
    The badly damaged Clinton is millions of votes ahead of Trump and Sanders.
    If that's damaged, deal me in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @SS

      You mean deal the women card from the bottom of the deck.

      Delete
    2. Classic! :-D

      Delete
    3. Your response makes as much sense as the comment in Cyrillic below.

      Delete
    4. @SS

      Don't be Cyrillic. HRC can be simultaneously phlegmatic and flummoxed.

      Delete
  11. Михаил КАРГИНОВMay 4, 2016 at 9:56 PM

    @ 8: 51 PM, 7:13 PM, 6:30 PM, 6:27 PM, 6:21 PM, & 6:04 PM -

    Расследование уголовного дела об убийстве в казанском отеле экс-супруги миллиардера Игоря Сосина – Анастасии, завершено. В эту среду все материалы, после согласования в прокуратуре Татарстана, наконец, переданы в Вахитовский районный суд.

    Там в ближайшем будущем будет рассмотрена просьба следствия об отправке Егора Сосина на принудительное лечение, или попросту в психушку.

    Кстати, представлять интересы Егора, а также принимать решения за него будет не родной отец-миллиардер, а районный отдел опеки и попечительства. Нет, конечно, по закону интересы больного, коим Сосин младший был признан медицинскими специалистами, должны представлять близкие родственники. Вот только отец его далеко, сестра мало того, что учится в Лондоне, так еще и несовершеннолетняя, а родная бабушка не совсем здорова.

    Так что остается один единственный вариант для «золотого» мальчика – государство. Последнее в какой-то мере заменит Егору отца, который так и не удосужился приехать в Казань для участия в судьбе родного сына. То ли действительно не смог, то ли не захотел, а может и вовсе устал возиться с проблемным отпрыском.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Google translate says...

      The investigation of the criminal case of the murder in Kazan at the ex-wife of billionaire Igor Sosina - Anastasia completed. In this environment all the materials, after agreeing to the Prosecutor's Office of Tatarstan finally transferred to Vahitovskij District Court.

      There soon will be considered, please send an investigation Yegor Sosina for compulsory treatment, or simply in a psychiatric hospital.

      By the way, to represent the interests of Yegor, and make decisions for him is not a father, billionaire and the district department of custody and guardianship. No, of course, by law, the interests of the patient, whom Sosin Jr. was recognized medical experts, should represent close relatives. That's just his father away, little sister that is studying in London, and also a minor, and own grandmother is not very well.

      So it is one the only option for the "golden" boy - state. Last to some extent replace the father Yegor, who had not bothered to come to Kazan to participate in the life of his own son. That there really could not, or did not want, and can and do tired to mess with problematic offspring.

      Delete
    2. Posted by one "Mikhail Kargin..."

      Delete
    3. Google translate is pretty bad, but it's better than nothing.

      Delete
  12. I see old Tailgunner Bob Somerby is trotting out the old Trot smear on Bernie Sanders.

    Well, kiss my bolshi bollocks, Bobo, but Bernie is a "SINO."

    http://www.salon.com/2016/01/16/bernie_sanders_is_no_socialist_socialism_is_his_brand_but_hes_a_democrat_in_every_way_but_name/

    ReplyDelete
  13. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi everyone!
    I'm so excited my husband is back after a break up !
    My husband broke up with me last week, i was so frustrated and i could not know what next to do again, i love my husband so much but he was cheating on me with another woman and this makes him broke up with me so that he can be able to get marry to the other lady and this lady i think use witchcraft on my husband to make him hate me and my kids and this was so critical and uncalled-for,I cry all day and night for God to send me a helper to get back my man until i went to NY to see a friend and who was having the same problem with me but she latter got her Husband back and i asked her how she was able to get her husband back and she told me that their was a powerful spell caster in Africa name Dr.Unity that he help with love spell in getting back lost lover back, and i decided to contacted the same Dr.Unity and he told me what is needed to be done for me to have my man back and i did it although i doubted it but i did it and the Dr told me that i will get the result after 48hours, and he told me that my husband was going to call me by 9pm in my time and i still doubted his word, to my surprise my husband really called me and told me that he miss me so much, Oh My God! i was so happy, and today i am happy with my man again and we are joyfully living together as one good family and i thank the powerful spell caster Dr.Unity of Unityspelltemple@gmail.com , he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that good spell casters still exist and Dr.Unity is one of the good spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are there and your lover is turning you down, or you have your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore contact the powerful spell caster Dr.Unity on his email: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com .if you have any problem contact Dr.Unity,I guarantee you that he will help you.Thank you so much Dr Unity.

    ReplyDelete