BREAKING: Major movie star had a pet dog!

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2018

The Yorkie stays in the picture:
In the first hundred pages of her new book, Amy Chozick offers a memorable portrait of the way the New York Times covered our last presidential campaign.

As Mother would have said, she seems to think what she's saying is "smart." In truth, it's an unintentional, dimwitted indictment of the standards and procedures of that famous newspaper.

Over at Slate, Isaac Chotiner read the book, then interviewed its author. After quoting from the book, he said that Chozick's portrait includes "an interesting way of introducing the politics editor of the most important newspaper on Earth as it covers one of the most important elections of our lifetime, because it fits with a lot of critiques of the Times coverage, especially around the Clintons—that it was too gossipy and not focused enough on policy."

Chotiner's aim was true. That said, he didn't go far enough in his indictment of the Times, perhaps due to time limitations.

On Saturday, we cited some of the ludicrous behaviors and attitudes Chozick attributes to Carolyn Ryan, the Times politics editor during the last campaign. As we left off, Chozick was about to extend that portrait of her "no-bullshit boss."

We were on page 21 of her book. She was about to give an example of "the kind of memorable details that Carolyn and I both gravitated to" in the coverage of Candidate Clinton which helped put Trump where he is.

How inane is the type of journalism Chozick goes on to describe? Below, we show you the "memorable detail" Chozick cites. Inevitably, it involves a major movie star, and the major movie star's dog. According to Chozick's rollicking memoir, this is the way the New York Times covered the last campaign:
CHOZICK (page 21-22): .... In minutes, [Ryan] could weed through two thousand words of crap, pulling out a priceless treasure of an anecdote buried in graph fifteen.

[Clinton staffers] hated the kind of memorable details that Carolyn and I both gravitated to....

But they could never forgive me for the Yorkie.


I had a detail about the foundation purchasing a first-class ticket for Natalie Portman and her beloved dog to fly to one of the Clinton Global Initiative gatherings. Carolyn loved the Yorkie. She wanted to make it the lead.

"It's a fucking Yorkie, Amy!" [one Clinton staffer] yelled as I stuttered trying to explain why this was a critical detail that showed the charity's glitzy overspending. "It weighs like four fucking ponds. It's not like it needed its own seat on the plane."

A year later a conservative super PAC sent around an anti-Hillary fundraising plea. "The Clinton Foundation—which pays to fly her around on private jets, flew Natalie Portman's Yorkie first class."

Carolyn emailed me, "I knew that Yorkie would be back."
That's the end of the rollicking section in Chapter 2 in which Chozick helps us see how brilliant Ryan, her "no-bullshit boss," was and presumably is. The section ends with this rollicking anecdote, in which the inclusion of a "memorable detail" leads to an inane, and apparently erroneous, attack on the Clinton Foundation.

Elsewhere in Hollywood lore, "The Kid Stay[ed] in the Picture." With the ludicrous Carolyn Ryan, The Yorkie Would Be Coming Back!

That anecdote constitutes Chozick's attempt to show how brilliant her editor was. Let's examine the story she tells, starting with our claim that the subsequent attack on the Clinton Foundation seems to have been erroneous.

In what way was that attack erroneous? The conservative super PAC seemed to be saying that the Clinton Foundation had wastefully purchased a first-class airplane ticket for Natalie Portman's pet dog!

Indeed, that seems to be the whole point of this story, even as Chozick tells it. According to Chozick, she told an angry Clinton staffer that the Yorkie was "a critical detail that showed" the Clinton Foundation's "glitzy overspending."

How could the Yorkie show such a thing unless the Foundation spent some money on the Yorkie, presumably by buying it a first-class airplane ticket? But in fact, there's no sign that the Foundation did any such thing, except in the insinuations lodged in this stupid anecdote.

Please note: when Chozick argues with the Clinton staffer, it sounds like she is saying that they should have bought a separate seat for the dog. It's the Clinton staffer who seems to be saying that the Yorkie is so small that he or she didn't need its own seat on the plane.

(Or something. Amy Chozick's rollicking stories rarely make clear sense.)

Along the same lines, here's the actual news report in which the Yorkie was mentioned. As best we can tell from a Nexis search, that's the only time Portman's Yorkie ever appeared in the New York Times.

The sole mention of the Yorkie comes fairly late in the news report, all the way down in paragraph 18. This is what was written:
CONFESSORE AND CHOZICK (8/14/13): [T]he foundation's expansion has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red.

Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees.
According to that report, the Foundation purchased one plane ticket—a first-class ticket for Portman. Portman brought the Yorkie with her.

There was no claim that the Foundation spent any money at all on the dog. For that reason, it's hard to know why the Times included that "memorable detail" in this news report at all. That said:

Incredibly, Chozick says that her no-bullshit boss wanted to make the Yorkie the lead! That, of course, is the virtual definition of all-bullshit news reporting—the kind of reporting in which the Times has specialized down through these many long and destructive years.

Why did the Yorkie go in the story at all? The news report concerned alleged over-spending, but according to the news report, no money was spent on the dog.

Inevitably, this led to a later attack in which a conservative super PAC spread the impression that the Clinton Foundation bought a first-class ticket for the dog! And instead of feeling chastened by this outcome of her manifest bullshit, Carolyn Ryan emailed Chozick chortling about the Yorkie's return!

So goes the rollicking portrait of the Times written by this disordered person—her portrait of the rollicking way the Times covered Candidate Clinton. That said, there's much, much, much, much, much more of this manifest lunacy on virtually every page of this remarkable book.

What sorts of people behave this way? Can they really be people at all?

Final point, and here's a clue about human life as lived on the planet:

Very major movie stars don't really travel in coach! If they did, they would experience the actual problem only imagined by Scott Pruitt. They would be pestered and mobbed.

Just a guess! If you want a major movie star to bring big publicity to your event, it's very likely that you'll have to fly her first class. (We'll guess that there's a decent chance that some major stars will ask for a private plane instead.)

If you buy that first-class ticket, that doesn't mean you're wasting money. It means you're familiar with life on the planet.

As such, it wasn't just the movie star's dog who didn't belong in that news report. Almost surely, the movie star didn't belong there either! If the foundation really was running large deficits, a typical claim which was hotly disputed, that plane ticket wasn't the reason.

Why was the movie star in the report? Chozick and Ryan stuck her in because, in Chozick's words, Ryoan "had a more innate sense of what people wanted to read...than any editor I'd ever worked for."

In other words, New York Times readers just wanna have fun! In Ryan's mind, they want to read about movie stars, and about movie stars' dogs! For that utterly fatuous reason, the Yorkie stayed in the report!

New York Times readers just wanna have fun! In its political coverage, the Times has worked from that deadly prescription through these many destructive years.

People are dead all over the world because of the Chozicks and the Ryans—and because of the Seelyes, the Riches and Dowds, who played these games long before them.

For extra credit only: Carolyn Ryan was the editor. She wanted to lead with the Yorkie.

So why was the Yorkie in graf 18? As in her news reports, so too in her book:

Chozick forgets to explain.

37 comments:

  1. "What sorts of people behave this way? Can they really be people at all?"

    This is the kind of dehumanizing remark that runs counter to everything Somerby has been preaching. We are not supposed to say such things about people we disagree with.

    Ryan is the editor but both Chozick and Somerby blame the people for her choices, saying people just want to have fun. What is the evidence that any reader of the NY Times prefers to have spurious details about Natalie Portman in serious articles about charity foundation shortfalls?

    Maybe Ryan just wants to have fun and Chozick is too clueless to understand that her editor has judgment problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REAL SPELL CASTER (LORD JUMA) THAT CAN HELP YOU GET YOUR LOVER BACK add him up on whatsApp @ +1 (859)-203-2241

      Hi everyone, I was going crazy when my husband breakup with me and left me for another woman!! All thanks to LORD JUMA the best love spell caster online that helped me to bring back my husband today and restore happiness in my marriage.. I'm DIANA DIVEN by name i lives in England. My husband breakup with me and left me to be with another woman, and i wanted him back. 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 break up with me so that he can be able to get married 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 husband!! I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that LORD JUMA can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, 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 big family and i thank the powerful spell caster LORD JUMA, he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that LORD JUMA is best spell caster online who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and your lover is turning you down, or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster LORD JUMA on his email at: mercyfullsolutionhome@yahoo.com or mercyfullsolutionhome@gmail.com you can visit his Website Via> http://mercyfullsolutionhome.website2.me or his blog> https://mercyfullsolutionhome.blogspot.com add him up on whatsApp @ +1 (859)-203-2241 .

      Delete
    2. It just occur to me that i have not done the right thing since when my husband came back to me, I am on this blog to give thanks to whom it deserve. Some couples of weeks ago my life was in a terrible shape because my husband left me and i never believe that i was going to get him back. But through the help of this powerful spell caster called Dr.Ogbefun my life is now in a joyful mood, I must recommend the services of Dr.Ogbefun to any one out there that they should contact Dr.Ogbefun through these details below: ( ogbefuntemple@gmail.com ) or call +2348077383469 because through Dr.Ogbefun assistance my marriage was restored.

      Delete
  2. If the Yorkie was only in paragraph 18 and was never mentioned again by the Times, how did it find its way into a conservative SuperPac's propaganda? Seems like there might have been a conduit from either Ryan or Chozick. Otherwise, it is too small and insignificant a detail to have been on anyone's radar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you even know who Natalie Portman is?

      Delete
    2. Their researchers actually read whole articles looking for stuff like that.

      Delete
  3. Why, Yorkie is a good detail. I like it: pretentious limousine liberals and their Yorkies. Nobody likes youse libs, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Yorkie didn't get its own seat. Did you read Somerby's post?

      Delete
    2. Did I say it did, dear? I don't care about the seat; I'm not into fake outrage.

      Pretentious limousine liberal with a Yorkie is a good image. Recognizable, fits the stereotype. That's all.

      Delete
    3. I'll tell my Yorkie-owning Trump-voting brother who takes his Yorkie on trips with him to prepare to be jeered at. Not sure he would understand why having a Yorkie with you means diddly squat, except you love your dog. What bullshit this all is. A mistaken report about a dog twisted into some anti-liberal mockery by brain dead conservatives.

      Delete
    4. Mao, another point for you for the "dear" put down. For me, I hope the dems get their act together, but what are the odds of that? And an example of the right kind of fake outrage is being outraged by [black] nfl players expressing their outrage [fake?] by not properly showing obeisant 'respect' for the flag, if I have this right?

      Delete
    5. "I'm not into fake outrage."
      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
      Turns out, Hillary Clinton is as sweet as Mao's grandmother.

      Delete
  4. A political candidate, flailing and waving his arms about, speaking with a pretended speech impediment, mocking a disabled man. I had to wonder: is he even a person? Do people behave like that?

    The candidate's audience, laughing and cheering at his mocking impression. I wondered: do people behave like that? Are they really people at all?
    Their behavior seemed despicable, deplorable even.

    But then I remembered Bob Somerby's decade-long admonition to us "liberal" types not to dehumanize The Others. The mocking of a disabled person was just evidence of their deep-seated economic anxiety and their abiding humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't read Chozick's book yet. I have it on reserve at the Library. I certainly wouldn't buy such drivel.But based on her campaign reporting, I'm not surprised at what Bob has covered so far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might find it interesting to read Chozick's book side-by-side with Katy Tur's book on covering the Trump campaign.

      I'll bet Chozick never talks about receiving death threats or being given secret service protection at Clinton rallies, or being called out from the podium for not looking at the candidate (she replied that she was live-tweeting his speech and Trump was mollified).

      Delete
  6. Was Chozick's reporting the only coverage that appeared in the Times? Somerby gives that impression. I didn't follow the Times back then. Just curious if there was more substantive reporting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both the Post and the Times went to great lengths attempt to smear the Foundation (see the Howler archives) and came up with all smoke, no fire. But they set the framework that the Foundation was corrupt. Which is Bullshit. The "good guy" at Fox Shep Smith went deep on this the week of the election, and overshot so far he had to apoligize (forgiven by Rachel, natch), though he promised an eventual damning story on The Foundation. Guess waht? never happened.

      Delete
  7. Greg
    LORD.

    First Bob borates a book connivingly after all, that, he should talk about after commencing, even. Then he commits and embarrasing equal the anything error Chozick is likely to match in the remainder of her tome.
    Duh. the problem, BOB, you incredible nincompoop, was that Trump DENIED COHEN WAS HANDLING STORMY DANIEL'S TOME FOR HIM, something previously he had admitted by the way. I know this subject makes Bob a little crazy, and Avenatti's effective seeming pursuit of Trump on air has ruduced Bob to frazzled name calling, but this is gross incometrence on Bob's part. Gad he's big on attorney client privilege, which by the way, does not always protect always illegal activity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not the real Greg who originally posted this. Can you please stop cluttering up the comments by posting the same comment over and over again?

      Delete
    2. Greg, your contention that one should not criticize passages or chapters in a book until the reader has finished the book seems to me to be a narrow minded and unintelligent approach. Did you not attend classes where critiques were sought by your teachers when reading, for example, Moby Dick? Myopia is a terrible thing. Open your mind.

      Delete
    3. Actually, I think Bob did a fairly good job today. It's a shame that he has so discredited himself that a valid piece of work like this will not be much noticed.

      Delete
    4. Notice you didn't try to spoof my post in real time, it's point being rather hard to get around!

      Delete
    5. Greg, was your original point that it was somehow news or surprising to learn that Trump was lying when he originally said that Cohen was not handling Stormy Daniels for him? Wasn't that plainly obvious to everyone the whole time that he was lying?

      See Bob's post on Friday: "Duh, Of course the politician in question paid the porn star to shut up. Beyond that, of course the politician in question has chosen not to reveal this fact."

      Maybe Somerby thinks the same about the Cohen denial and subsequent flip-flop. It appears so. You seem to think that it's an extremely important point which of course is your right but he explained pretty thoroughly why he doesn't think points like that are important and of course he's not going to write about things that he doesn't think are important.

      Delete
    6. 4:28


      First Bob borates a book connivingly after all, that, he should talk about after commencing, even. Then he commits and embarrasing equal the anything error Chozick is likely to match in the remainder of her tome.
      Duh. the problem, BOB, you incredible nincompoop, was that Trump DENIED COHEN WAS HANDLING STORMY DANIEL'S TOME FOR HIM, something previously he had admitted by the way. I know this subject makes Bob a little crazy, and Avenatti's effective seeming pursuit of Trump on air has ruduced Bob to frazzled name calling, but this is gross incometrence on Bob's part. Gad he's big on attorney client privilege, which by the way, does not always protect always illegal activity.

      Delete
    7. 708 Greg- I think the point is that your original point is a bit banal and off the mark.

      Delete
    8. Somerby is wasting time on a stupid book that he shouldn't have spent money on and certainly shouldn't bother reading. Clinton didn't lose because Chozick and Ryan wrote biased articles calling her a crook. She was still ahead in the polls and on track to be elected despite the best (worst) efforts of the NY Times. She lost because of Comey and voter suppression efforts in key states (WI, MI) that affected African American and young female voters.

      If Somerby were to spend his time reading Clinton's recap, What Happened, he might understand the arguments about what did and did not cost Clinton the election. The NY Times is annoying but it wasn't the decisive factor in the election. Somerby might find interesting what Clinton has to say about the Times herself.

      Delete
    9. Either the comment section has been hacked, or somebody thinks my comments are worth reposting over and over. More likely, it’s the nutcase on the board who long ago developed some weird obsession with me. But first, I stand by my original comment though in the confusion I’m now not sure what it was. Second, you will not be able to say anything of significance about Moby Dick from reading one chapter.

      Delete
    10. You stand by what you said although you don't know what it was. Spoken like the true idiot you are.

      Delete
  8. "The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red" (Confessore and Chozick).

    Do any of us know what that means? Do Confessore and Chozick? Is it actually bad?

    I would imagine that foundations derive revenues from fundraising and investment returns, and have expenses that include program expenses (spending on charitable good works), internal expenses (wages for staff...) and other fundraising expenses (mounting events, flying movie stars...). Presumably the "deficit" is revenues - expenses for the year in question.

    Generally, for a well-run foundation, the dominant expenses are those associated with programs...spending on good works. So is it bad when a billion dollar foundation (that is a foundation that has, over the years, accumulated assets of $1 billion) spends $40 million more than it raises or earns in that year? For these years, was the effect of market movements positive or negative? Isn't it generally considered a Good Thing when a foundation spends a lot on programs, rather than hoard its assets? Should a foundation temporarily defund what might be a multi-year initiative to, say, combat river blindness, if the stock market goes down?

    Or was that quote just another snarky hit that C&C could hurl at the Clinton's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just Another Block-Citing BlockheadMay 7, 2018 at 7:29 PM

      From Snopes:
      A charity watchdog with an ongoing relationship with the Clinton Foundation gave the former first family’s nonprofit high marks Thursday, after an evaluation prompted by the heightened interest in the organization.

      The Clinton Foundation received four out of four stars — the highest rating that Charity Navigator gives after a close look at a charity’s finances. The rating is based on annual federal tax documents. It was not intended to reflect whether Hillary Clinton kept donors to her family’s foundation at appropriate arm’s length or provided favored access as secretary of state … Charity Navigator’s president, Michael Thatcher, told The Associated Press that the Clinton campaign did not influence the rating.

      The four-star badge comes at a time when the Clinton Foundation is under intense scrutiny about whether Clinton granted donors access at the State Department. An AP analysis found that of 154 people outside government with private interests who met or spoke to Clinton by phone, 85 had contributed either personally or through their organizations to the foundation. The Clinton campaign said Clinton would have met with the donors, anyway, in her role as secretary of state.

      The watchdog had previously rated the Clinton Foundation with four stars in 2007, and in 2012 downgraded it to three stars due to changes in its methodology. Its original four-star rating was based on the foundation’s financial health and performance. In 2012, it also evaluated the charity on accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator requires five independent board members, but the foundation had only three during the 2009 fiscal year, Thatcher said. The downgrade came the same year that Charity Navigator was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative.

      The Clinton Global Initiative waived its membership fees for Charity Navigator, as it does for nonprofits, nongovernment organizations and social entrepreneurs. Charity Navigator treated the $20,000 waiver as an in-kind donation. Thatcher said his group joined Clinton’s to mingle with world leaders and promote its ratings.

      He said the new rating was unrelated to Charity Navigator’s relationship with the foundation. “The numbers speak for themselves,” he said.

      According to its 2014 consolidated tax report, the Clinton Foundation spends about 12 percent of its budget on running the foundation. Another charity watchdog, Charity Watch, previously gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating on a scale of A-F. Charity Watch has no connection to the Clinton Foundation, said its president, Daniel Borochoff. “We don’t want money from charities we rate, because we believe in being an independent charity watchdog,” he said.

      Charity Navigator stopped rating the Clinton Foundation entirely in 2014 because it said changes in the foundation’s business structure were incompatible with the way Charity Navigator calculates its ratings. After what Thatcher described as “unprecedented demand” for a rating for the Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator asked the foundation to consolidate its tax forms in a way the watchdog could evaluate it. That led to Thursday’s four-star rating.

      Delete
    2. "Or was that quote just another snarky hit that C&C could hurl at the Clinton's?"

      Yes

      Delete
    3. "The rating is based on annual federal tax documents."

      Where's Trump's tax returns? Oh yeah, nobody - not the media, not Bernie, not Noam, not the GOP, not the DLC, not Chozick, not the NY times , not WaPo, not Faux, not Somerby - gives a flying fig about that.

      Delete
  9. Powerful Effective Love Spell Get Your Ex Back About a month ago I got back to my ex(after 2 and half years separated).Everything was ok and she was the most adorable woman in the world. she spoke about wedding ceremony, how many kids we would have, said that our relationship was the most important thing in her life and he was 100% sure about it…Then he traveled to work in other country for 3 weeks. he changed his behavior completely. he disappeared every night, was saying she had to do some work and would talk to me later, but disappeared the rest of the day and night… no explanation, when I asked why she was disappearing every night, she stopped answering me. she’s ignoring me since last week, April 15. she ignored even my birthday, that was April 16. Not even a message. I wrote to her a few times trying to understand what happened, she read but just ignored me.I feel so bad cause I couldn’t stop contacting and trying to understand what happened.i loved her so much and wanted to get her back, then i was told to contact happylovespell2@gmail.com who can help out with a love spell to reunite your relationship back, so instantly do contact him and give him a try and trust me he did an urgent effective love spell for me and with 46hours promise he made to me, my woman was back, today i testify to you all that you should seek and contact Dr happy for his spell result is genuine sure and guarantee unite and get your ex back save your marriage/relationship problem now, email happlovespell2@gmail.com you can also know more about his spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/ Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774 Web http://happylovespel.webs.com/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Save Your Relationship and Get Your Ex Boyfriend/Girlfriend Back!contact: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com is certainly the best spell caster online and his result is 100% guarantee.
    My Name Olivia Stephen form Tx,USA. After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he would come back to me, I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. 28 hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr.Unity real and powerful spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your Ex back or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster now. Here’s his contact
    Call/WhatsApp: +2348071622464 ,
    Email: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,
    Website:https://unityspelltemple126848969.wordpress.com .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Powerful Effective Love Spell Get Your Ex Back About a month ago I got back to my ex(after 2 and half years separated).Everything was ok and she was the most adorable woman in the world. she spoke about wedding ceremony, how many kids we would have, said that our relationship was the most important thing in her life and he was 100% sure about it…Then he traveled to work in other country for 3 weeks. he changed his behavior completely. he disappeared every night, was saying she had to do some work and would talk to me later, but disappeared the rest of the day and night… no explanation, when I asked why she was disappearing every night, she stopped answering me. she’s ignoring me since last week, April 15. she ignored even my birthday, that was April 16. Not even a message. I wrote to her a few times trying to understand what happened, she read but just ignored me.I feel so bad cause I couldn’t stop contacting and trying to understand what happened.i loved her so much and wanted to get her back, then i was told to contact happylovespell2@gmail.com who can help out with a love spell to reunite your relationship back, so instantly do contact him and give him a try and trust me he did an urgent effective love spell for me and with 46hours promise he made to me, my woman was back, today i testify to you all that you should seek and contact Dr happy for his spell result is genuine sure and guarantee unite and get your ex back save your marriage/relationship problem now, email happlovespell2@gmail.com you can also know more about his spell Blogs site.http://happylovespel.blogspot.com.ng/ Whatsapp/cal +2348133873774 Web http://happylovespel.webs.com/

    ReplyDelete
  12. REAL SPELL CASTER (LORD JUMA) THAT CAN HELP YOU GET YOUR LOVER BACK add him up on whatsApp @ +1 (859)-203-2241

    Hi everyone, I was going crazy when my husband breakup with me and left me for another woman!! All thanks to LORD JUMA the best love spell caster online that helped me to bring back my husband today and restore happiness in my marriage.. I'm DIANA DIVEN by name i lives in England. My husband breakup with me and left me to be with another woman, and i wanted him back. 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 break up with me so that he can be able to get married 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 husband!! I was really upset and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that LORD JUMA can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a spell for me. 28 hours later, 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 big family and i thank the powerful spell caster LORD JUMA, he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that LORD JUMA is best spell caster online who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and your lover is turning you down, or your husband moved to another woman, do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster LORD JUMA on his email at: mercyfullsolutionhome@yahoo.com or mercyfullsolutionhome@gmail.com you can visit his Website Via> http://mercyfullsolutionhome.website2.me or his blog> https://mercyfullsolutionhome.blogspot.com add him up on whatsApp @ +1 (859)-203-2241 .

    ReplyDelete
  13. It just occur to me that i have not done the right thing since when my husband came back to me, I am on this blog to give thanks to whom it deserve. Some couples of weeks ago my life was in a terrible shape because my husband left me and i never believe that i was going to get him back. But through the help of this powerful spell caster called Dr.Ogbefun my life is now in a joyful mood, I must recommend the services of Dr.Ogbefun to any one out there that they should contact Dr.Ogbefun through these details below: ( ogbefuntemple@gmail.com ) or call +2348077383469 because through Dr.Ogbefun assistance my marriage was restored.

    ReplyDelete