IN THE YEAR 2525: Krystal Ball and the talking-points!


Part 3—Fruit of the RNC: Over the weekend, anthropologists of the future came to us in a dream.

Can this unusual dream be trusted? We can’t answer that! But what follows is derived from the various things the anthropologists said:

In the year 2525, Krystal Ball’s June 17 commentary will be regarded an iconic text. Anthropologists will say it contained all the features of the priestly “pundit speak” which took down the American nation.

In yesterday’s post, we focused on the absurdity of one of Ball’s central statements. Today, we’ll run through her broadcast point by point, reviewing the things we were told.

For Ball's complete text, click here.

Was Ball’s presentation really a classic of modern establishment “pundit speak?” We’d have to say it pretty much was! We’d also say that liberals should be appalled by the never-ending conduct of media vassals like Ball.

We’ll start at the beginning, helping you see the ways Ball mastered the “pundit speak” which has proven to be so destructive to progressive causes.

Some highly suggestive trivia: Ball opened with matters of total trivia which carried an obvious point:
What are we to make of the Hillary Clinton book tour that is so much more than a book tour? The down-to-the-second, precision interactions, perfectly calculated to make sure visitors don’t feel jilted while maximizing the number of signatures. The planned pop-ups of old friends who just happen to be in the area. The carefully crafted backdrops, not too warehouse-y but not too stiff.

And of course, the interviews.

As she opened, Ball listed three trivial points concerning the staging of Clinton’s book tour. In effect, she asked a series of silly questions—silly questions which bore an obvious point.

“What are we to make of” the way Clinton’s book-signing events were “perfectly calculated” to maximize the number of signings? Please. In this, and in the points which followed, Ball was already reciting a decades-old RNC line:

Everything the Clintons do is fake, phony, staged—“crafted” and “perfectly calculated.”

This has been an RNC talking-point since the dawn of time. In 1999, the script was seamlessly transferred to Candidate Gore, producing an electoral disaster. Ball’s “journaistic” predecessors portrayed Gore this way for two solid years, sending George Bush to the White House.

Last month, Ball was pimping this story again. Unless you prefer Republican rule, you should have been concerned with this silly swill by the end of her opening paragraph.

Excuses for the press corps: As she continued, Ball performed a sacred rite of the younger priestly underclass. She acted as if the press corps’ incessant focus on trivia is perfectly normal, unavoidable, a practice that must be accepted:
Now, 99 percent of the interviews substance has been safe, unremarkable, just like Hillary was hoping. But that other one percent is of course what’s gotten all the attention.
In that passage, Ball continued her portrait of the devious Clintons. She says “Hillary” had been hoping for substance that was safe and unremarkable.

That said, the key words there are “of course.”

That passage could have led to a criticism of the press corps’ focus on trivia and “gaffes.” But within Ball’s text, those key words functioned in a different way. They treated the press corps’ obsession with Clinton’s “gaffes” as something that couldn’t be avoided, that need not be explained.

In all such texts, our journalists work to keep us rubes from understanding a key fact. The insider “press corps” routinely advances its favored narratives. It routinely uses all manner of trivia to drive its preferred themes along.

The recitation of preferred elite themes: As Ball continued, she turned directly to a complaint which had emerged from Clinton’s first “gaffe.” Hillary Clinton owns more than one house, the corporate “liberal” cried:
First there was the lament that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House and had trouble affording mortgages [stresses the plural] for their houses [stresses the plural]. As a presumptive nominee of a party that is deeply animated by issues of inequality and middle-class fairness, could this comment have been any more dissonant?
You’ll have to watch the videotape to see the way Ball stresses the plural in the words “houses” and mortgages.” (To watch the tape, click here.) In this way, she was helping us focus on the fact that the Clintons’ own two different houses, not one!

At this point, a minor aside: Based on her adult life to date, Ball will own expensive homes up the yin-yang by the time she’s Clinton’s age.

According to her campaign disclosures when she ran for Congress, Ball already seemed to be worth millions by 2010. (The year before, she had presented herself as an inspiring young congressional candidate who didn’t possess any wealth. Whatever!)

An ambitious person like Ball will own estates by the dozens. But as of June 17, she knew the script which was emerging: The Clintons own too many homes!

“Could this comment have been any more dissonant?” Ball asked this question about Clinton’s alleged bobble about having been “not only dead broke, but in debt” upon leaving the White House.

The anthropologists glanced away in embarrassment when they discussed this silly hyperbole on Ball’s part. Yes, it could have been more dissonant, one anthropologist said.

The heart of the recitation: In the next part of Ball’s iconic text, we reach the heart of the problem.

In this passage, Ball is reciting a sacred RNC text—the very text the RNC and her “liberal” colleagues employed to send Bush to the White House. She closes this passage was a suggestive but silly question:
Then there was an uncomfortable exchange with NPR’s Terry Gross in which Hillary struggled at length to sort through her various talking-points on gay marriage to describe how and why her position on the issue changed. She eventually settled on something along the lines of, “The country changed and so did I and as soon as I was done with my non-political job at State I came out with my new position,” an answer that I really take no issue with. I wish more people would have the courage to evolve, and more rapidly.

But in her talking-point flail we were reminded of something else—the fact that, for the Clintons, everything is carefully poll-tested, focus-grouped and weather-vaned. If marriage equality was still a drag for Democratic candidates, do you think Hillary would still have come out in support?

“For the Clintons, everything is carefully poll-tested, focus-grouped and weather-vaned,” Ball now declared.

And not only that! When Clinton was interviewed by Gross, she “struggled at length to sort through her various talking-points on gay marriage.” She engaged in a “talking-point flail.”

It’s slightly odd to see Ball saying these things. In prior statements, Ball has said that she favored Clinton over Obama in Campaign 2008. Earlier this year, she said, “I would back Clinton with all my heart against any Republican, and I would even support her over most Democrats.” (Elizabeth Warren was the lone stated exception.)

Whatever! Here’s the key point:

In that passage, Ball is reciting the RNC’s key talking-point of the past twenty-rwo years. Everything is focus-grouped with these people! Everything is a talking-point! Nothing they say is authentic!

Most destructively, these talking-points were seamlessly transferred to Candidate Gore in 1999 and 2000, eventually sending George Bush to the White House. This is a powerful, deeply destructive script. Democrats should chase pundits like Ball through the streets when they run out to employ it.

Concerning that evocative question: A final note on the question which ends that remarkable passage: “If marriage equality was still a drag for Democratic candidates, do you think [Clinton] would still have come out in support?”

We can’t answer that question, but we would assume the answer is no. We’d assume the same answer for Obama, though Ball ended her commentary this day with a rather plain suggestion that Obama is more straightforward and honest than “Hillary.”

Duh. Candidates and office-holders are almost always the last to switch on highly divisive policy questions. The reason for that is blindingly obvious. If candidates want to get elected, they have to be careful about potential deal-breakers, and they typically are.

Presumably, Ball understands this. Consider a biographical note:

When Ball ran for Congress in 2010, she supported same-sex marriage. She got 34.8 percent of the vote, then switched to a different career.

Obama and Clinton changed their stances on same-sex marriage on the same basic timetable. Liberals should be appalled to see hustlers like Ball pimping this dumb shit around.

The mother of all script: In the passage we’ve just discussed, Ball aggressively stated the RNC’s controlling narrative of the past twenty years:

It’s nothing but talking-points with these people! Everything is focus-grouped! Nothing they say is authentic!

On two later occasions, she even resorted of the mother of all script, darkly referring to "the real Hillary."

Needless to say, many mainstream “journalists” have applied these same demonized scripts to the Clintons, to Kerry, to Gore. Unless we favor Republican rule, we liberals should be upset when we see millionaire pundits like Ball pushing the RNC’s most powerful talking-points for them, as their predecessors destructively did in the past.

In what remained of Ball’s text, she offered her most ridiculous point, claiming she has “no clue” what kind of president Clinton would be. We have to “guess” what Clinton is like from her gaffes, Ball said. Nothing in her long public record gives us any idea!

This is odd. In February, Ball said she would prefer Clinton as the next nominee over all Dems except Warren. Four months later, we're told that Ball has no idea what Clinton is actually like.

Everything is focus-grouped! It’s nothing but talking-points!

Quickly, some painful history:

Frank Rich was still repeating these claims about Gore in 2002 when Gore came out against the war in Iraq and got trashed from all sides. Rich said the same things in 2006, when Gore released his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Because Gore was a phony, just like the Clintons, nothing he said was truthful or real! According to Rich, Gore was only saying these things because he was running for president! It had all been focus-grouped!

As you know, Gore didn’t run for president again. Rich was pimping anti-Gore swill from the RNC, a task that he began performing in 1997. Today, pundits like Ball are still out there pushing this tin around.

Personally, we prefer Warren’s politics too, though we doubt she could win a national election. That said, work like this should get hustlers like Ball chased all through the streets.

Ball’s predecessors sent Bush to the White House in precisely this way. If you think it couldn’t happen again, you should probably talk to some people in the year 2525.

Tomorrow: Molly Ball recites to Chris Hayes

What makes Krystal Ball run: Ball has no idea what kind of president Hillary Clinton would be? “We can only guess through the bobbles [the gaffes], the accidental deviations from the script, the things that are said that didn’t come from the briefing book?”

No, really! That’s what she said!

Why does Ball say these things? In this interview with New York magazine, she may have explained:
FISCHER (8/22/12): Ball’s personal segments appear under the heading “Krystal Clear.” In a recent one, she revealed a “secret that no one on this show even knows”: she likes Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan and his Republican ilk, she explained, have just taken Rand fandom too far. Maybe this was surprising admission from an avowed liberal, but cable demands a different kind of media savvy than a campaign for Congress.

“In politics, you’re safest when you’re saying as little as possible,” Ball says. “You’re safest when you’ve got your talking points and you stick to them like glue, even if it means repeating yourself over and over.” Not so in the world of cable news. There the goal is to “cram as much as you can into a limited amount of time. You really don’t want to repeat yourself, because that’s boring, and you want to be unpredictable,” Ball says. “Being a host or a guest or a pundit, you really want to say something that’s interesting and potentially provocative, that’s going to stick with people. The last thing you want to say when you’re a politician is something provocative.”
Personally, we prefer our cable pundits to be “truthful” and “accurate.” Ball, who surprisingly loves Ayn Rand, wants to be “unpredictable,” “potentially provocative.”

KA-CHING, the cash registers say. In a dream, anthropologists said this pundit culture led to the national break-up.


  1. Question, Bob.

    If "these talking points" have been around at least since 1999, why is Hillary so inept at handling them now?

    1. It doesn't matter what Hillary does or doesn't say. She will have these points applied to her statements relentlessly. She is not making "gaffes" when she talks about being broke and in debt or needing to pay mortgages. She is telling the truth. And yet she is still accused of managing herself carefully to meet focus group opinion!

      There is nothing Hillary can say or do that will not attract criticism, including lies, from shills on both the right and left, including you.

    2. I would say blaming Hillary Clinton for the GOP attacks is like blaming the victim, as other commenters have done, but given the latest Clinton flap concerning alleged insensitivity to a rape
      victim I will avoid doing so for fear of being incendiary to the sensitivity of the insecure.

    3. Clinton is the last person on earth who would be insensitive to a rape victim. That the right raises this issue again demonstrates their "attack the strength" approach. Clinton has done more to help women and children than arguably any other candidate for office, across her many years of public service. Suggesting that she is callous about rape is absurd. But that is her strength, so that is where the RNC aims its attack.

      When you hear someone in these comments complaining that a 12-year old rape victim is being disrespected, they are not sensitive to rape, they are using this serious issue for political purposes to defame a disliked candidate. THAT is offensive, in my opinion. The problems of a 12-year-old are not a tool to be used in political game-playing.

      So, don't let the RNC and its shills win. Everyone with half a brain knows that Clinton wasn't gloating over the pain of a 12-year old girl. Call these claims ridiculous because that is what they are.

    4. I'm confused. Is it the RNC doing all this, or is it those awful pseudo-liberals in the media, led by the vile Diane Sawyer.

      Seems to change day by day.

    5. Anon @12:42 Is this too confusing? The RNC wants Hillary to fail. Diane Sawyer repeats the awful things the RNC says about Hillary. Does Diane Sawyer want Hillary to fail? If she was actually a journalist, she would not repeat the talking points of the RNC.

    6. So Somerby was wrong when he said the "jihad" started with Diane Sawyer. It started with the RNC. Thanks for clearing that up.

      But please refresh my memory as to exactly what "awful things" Sawyer dutifully repeated at the behest of the RNC.

    7. @1:38 Presented as a public service and taken directly from the Oily, Oligeanus Old Coot Column.

      "She and her husband, thanks to some big spenders, including Wall Street companies, are no longer the couple struggling for money. Reportedly, they can charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches.

      It has been reported you've made five million making speeches. The president made more than $100 million."

    8. Oh, deary! How could Hillary possibly withstand such a blistering recital of talking points?

      Oh woe is Western Civilization!

    9. When someone makes unfair or inaccurate statements about a political figure, it is the role of the press to challenge such statements, not inflate them, repeat them or even initiate them. The problem here is the loss of a functioning check on our democratic system (the press corps), not simply what was said about Clinton. Clinton and her supporters have every right to complain when this kind of crap happens, whether you think it is trivial or not.

  2. What Fischer wrote:

    "In a recent one, she revealed a “secret that no one on this show even knows”: she likes Ayn Rand."

    What Somerby read:

    "Ball, who surprisingly loves Ayn Rand,"

    1. What Al Gore said: "I took the initiative in creating the internet"

      What those taking the initiative in creating the talking points said: "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet."

      How does Somerby differ from the talking point initiators?

      BTW, for K-Ball's actual, in context, Ayn Rand comments, used to criticize Paul Ryan, go here:


    2. Pretty thin, KZ. There is not much difference between the colloquial use of the terms like/love applied to a public figure. No one thinks Ball wants to gay marry Rand, so how exactly is any meaning affected in Somerby's paraphrase?

      As for the quote being taken out of context, the remainder of Ball's speech is a criticism of Paul Ryan's tactics, not the heart of libertarian philosophy. Her focus is not on disavowing the inherent selfishness of Rand's philosophy but on quibbling that Ryan goes to far and the consequences of his proposals would be bad. There is nothing in the clip that suggests Ball even understands Ayn Rand, much less disavows any of Rand's extremism as she discusses the consequences of Paul Ryan's specific proposals.

      You are wrong.

    3. Hmmmm. In the clip KZ links to, Ball clearly says that she "likes" Rand as far as "not compromise your integrity on things that matter and fight for them" but that beyond that her philosophy is pretty much unrealistic in the world we live in.

      Then she goes on at length to criticize Ryan for adhering to Randian philosophy to the letter and for failing to recognize the difference between a novel and the real world.

      From that, Somerby deduces that Ball "loves" Rand.

      And Somerby's toadies hop right on board.

    4. Also in the clip, Ball admits that she couldn't get through the 70-page speech by John Galt.

      Yep, sure sounds like a Rand "lover" to me.

    5. Anon. @ 12:19, given that we were comparing BOB shifting the term "like " to "love" to those shifting Al Gore's word "creating" to "inventing" we appreciate this comment or yours very much.

      "There is not much difference between the colloquial use of the terms like/love applied to a public figure."

      If we agree, can we also say there is not much difference between the colloquial use of "creating" and "inventing" when describing a public figure touting their accomplishments?

      Thank you so much. In your service in the comment box you took the initiative in creating the intellectual dilemma BOB presents.
      If we disagree can we say that a man who has built his blog complaining about those who turned "creating" into "inventing" should avoid turning "like" to "love"?

    6. There is a big difference between creating and inventing something.

    7. Anon. @ 3:38 Is the difference "real" big, or ginormous?

      Does it matter if love is "puppy" love or "deep, abiding, everlasting"love?

      Can you "love" something on Facebook if you more than "like" it?

      And how do you think a biblical purist might respond if you asked "Well, Reverend Smarty Pants, the Bible said God created the heavens and earth. But who invented them?"


    8. Just as there is a big difference between "liking" Ayn Rand's novels and "loving" her philosophy.

    9. She didn't actually say she liked her novels. She said she liked her. Then she went on to discuss the novels, because that is how people know Rand's ideas. The remainder of her discussion was about Paul Ryan's extremity -- not his direction or his goals or his ideas, his extremity. Someone who doesn't like Ayn Rand finds a great deal more to complain about than the extreme action of blowing up a building at the end of The Fountainhead. Ball seems to be trying to have things both ways -- agreeing with the libertarians in their goals while disagreeing with the extremeness of their approach. Like many temperate conservatives, she wants to keep the highway system but lower taxes on businesses and people, but not as low as Paul Ryan wants because Mitt Romney should pay something. She doesn't sound the least bit like any liberal I have talked to on this subject. Maybe she doesn't know how to disagree with anyone, just wants to please all, and doesn't know how to be all things to all people without contradiction. But she sounded like someone who "likes" Ayn Rand, not just a good love story.

    10. Isn't that interesting? Your take on Ball's segment is exactly what Somerby told you to think.

      But you forgot a very important word in his narrative -- "love."

      Ball is supposed to "love" Ayn Rand. So I clicked on the link KZ provided, since Somerby wouldn't do it himself, to find out how much of a closet Randian libertarian Ball really is.

      Well, not much.

      But to use another overworked Somerby analogy, let me not interrupt you in your latest pig hunt.

      Bob has already identified Krystal Ball as the latest threat to Western Civilization as we know it. Grab your pointy sticks and hunt the pig.

    11. She thinks Paul Ryan is on the right track but just a bit too extreme in his proposals -- just as the building didn't have to be blown up at the end of The Fountainhead to get across the idea that it was an abomination.

      That would be OK if Krystal Ball were a Republican but she is masquerading as a liberal. I like my liberals a bit more leftwing, thank you very much.

  3. OMB (Searching the Golden Book of Goggle for the Word of OTB)

    Part 1.1

    In the beginning BOB discovered the Narrative and the Narrative was with BOB, and the Narrative was BOB.

    "In this, and in the points which followed, Ball was already reciting a decades-old RNC line:
    This has been an RNC talking-point since the dawn of time."
    OTB Today

    "Henderson works for the Post—and from MSNBC. For these reasons, she said the newspaper’s conduct had been reasonable—and she acted like the attacks on Clinton had come from the GOP."
    OTB July 3

    Lesson: One cannot blame the GOP unless one is the OTB!


    1. It was so nice while you were gone. Any chance you might go away again?

    2. There are those who allege we are responsible for 75% of all comments, including those of the spellcaster.

      So might we ask two questions?

      How do you know we have not been here all along?

      When will you summon up the intellect to offer any substantive response rather than continually appear as a whiny simpleton?


    3. I agree with Bob on this one. My feeling is the video he describes is very, very dumb. Really dumb.

    4. Are you, @ 2:13, also the author of the Anonymous @ 12:20 comment by any very, very remote chance?

    5. @2:13

      No, I'm not.

    6. Neither am I.

    7. KZ, you still don't get it.

      The attacks didn't come from the GOP until they did.

    8. KZ (dummy) - the attacks are not from the GOP - they are from the Washington Post and the MSNBC and more. The content used in the attacks are age-old GOP talking points. (In the case the Ball segment discussed.)

    9. Say what you will about Bob and his dishonesty, hypocrisy and jealousy of Josh Marshall's financial success etc etc but he is right in that the video segment from Ms. Ball is stupid from start to finish. It's a really, really sad waste of time and could stand as a tribute to the pervasive vapidity that lords over major media.

    10. @ 4:54

      So do you think this 4 minutes of afternoon cable vapididty merits 4 or more posts and another chance to stroll back down memory lane to the revisit bad old days where the press corps war defeated the people's General, Gore?

    11. 5:44 PM - I don't think it matters (to me) how much he posts about it. He could post about it 89 or 144 times - I don't care. He can stroll wherever he wants. Who am I to say? I stop reading if it's too much for me but I don't care what he does with his time or what his printed volume per vapid minute ration should be.

      That said, the segment is extremely dumb and almost totally empty. And very, very sad. I agree with him in that it is a remarkable 4 minutes. Did you watch it?

  4. I do think it is ironically appropriate that Somerby tags his latest series with the title of a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual tune from his undergraduate days at Harvard that was written and performed by a one-hit wonder band.

    But I wonder how many under the age of 50 get the reference.

    1. Wow. And here I thought "Crystal Ball and the Talking-Points" was the Dennis Milleresque pseudo-intellectual obscure cultural reference to a one hit wonder band from Bob's past. Think I'll go cry 96 tears.

  5. Or that a progressive white man would have done better than a ventriloquist for the NSAa and corporations with black skin.

  6. It is a shame progressives don't have a white man who can get into double digits in a primary.

  7. It is a shame "conservatives" can only run white men for president.

  8. OMB (Searching the Golden Book of Google for the Word of OTB)

    Part 2.525

    "Everything the Clintons do is fake, phony, staged—“crafted” and “perfectly calculated.”

    This has been an RNC talking-point since the dawn of time."

    We have used Mr. Google to look for proof on BOB's assertion.
    We have even searched his own archives. We have tried many variations of the terms BOB has used. One consistent use pops up.

    The alliterative phonetic phrase "fake, phony" is a fave of BOB's.


    1. Are you saying this wasn't an RNC meme about Hillary? If so, were you alive in the 1990's?

    2. You want to cite some sources? Bob didn't. KZ looked,
      says he couldn't find them. You want to try for us?
      You were alive in the 1990's so you know how to do it.

    3. No, not interested in wasting time on one of KZ's goose chases. This is obvious to everyone but KZ, whose only interest is criticizing Somerby.

    4. Anon. @ 6:53, we made no claims about what was and what was not an RNC talking point. BOB made the claim.

      We simply point out another phony spewing talking points since the dawn of his blog.

      You want an example of where such phrases come from?

      Headline: "Too fake and phony to be self-governing!"

      Targeted Person: Rachel Maddow

      Author: Bob Somerby

      Fictional Dream Visitor: Cassandra

      Message: Civilization collapsing

      Date: December 13, 2013


    5. KZ, you are a worthless waste of life haunting this website to play gotcha against someone who doesn't even read his comments. Pitiful.

    6. I have been discussing a variety of political topics with like minded visitors to this site. You get in the way and seem to have no interest in talking here beyond attacking Somerby. Just go away.

    7. KZ, corporate cash shoved into the pants of women is also a favorite Somerby theme that doesn't seem to apply to Hillary.

      He even applied it to Sawyer at the very same time he was dismissing Hillary's corporate loot.

      The Rules of Somerby seem to shift like the sands in the wind.

    8. I see. When KZ posts, he somehow forces you to respond.

      And that interrupts your lovefest with other "like minded visitors" over that wonderful "variety of political topics" that Somerby lays out for you. And other "like minded visitors."

    9. Anon. @ 10:01 We seem to recall the women do the honors themselves. Stuffing cash in their pants. That said, while your comment seems to indicate someone is forcing the lucre upon women and into their leg, hind, and lady part coverings, upon further reading other's results may differ.

      Your observation about the difference between Sawyer and Hillary is noted. The best part of reading BOB is his ability to negotiate his thoughtful readership through the shoals of accusation whilst simultaneously engaging in same said conduct.


  9. What a truly ugly remark (2:25).

  10. Like I said, what an ugly remark. Has there ever been anyone more politically tone deaf than Hanoi Jane, who went from Tom Hayden to Ted Turner without cognitive dissonance. She and Arianna Huffington are a pair.

  11. Okay fine it was a dumb segment. But why does he have to rant on and on about it?


  12. How to restore a broken relationship and marriage ,Love Spells That Really Work Fast

    My name is Mark Davis, my family and i live in NY USA.It was after seven years i got to discover that my wife was unfaithful to me.I didn't know what was going on at first but as she got deep in the affair with her new lover, i felt that our marriage was on the rocks.I notice that she no longer light up when i touch her or kiss her in her neck and her chest cos she really liked it when i did that, she also usually get naked in front of me but when she started seeing that guy she stopped it.I remember asking her if i have done anything that makes her feel irritated when i am around her then she gives silly excuses that she has been feeling stressed up and that she need space for a while.I know when you are been asked for space its usually because there is something fishy is going on.I hired a private investigator to help find out what was going on.And in a week time he brought me prove that my wife that i have lived with for seven straight year is cheating on me with her high school lover.I had picture of her walking out a of a restaurant with him and many other photo of them kissing in public like she will never be caught by someone that knows she is my wife.I asked myself, even when we had a daughter together she could this to me.That same night i showed her the pictures that i got from my private investigator.She didn't look at it before saying, that she is seeing someone and she know that i just found out about it.Then she said that she is in love with him.At that moment, i didn't know if to kill myself or to kill her but the button line is that if i was going to kill anyone it was going to be me cos i was so much in love with her to even think of thinking to hurt her.As time when on she asked for a divorce and got it and even got custody of our daughter and i was all alone by myself.For a year i tried all i could to get her back with the help of my seven year old daughter.Even at that all effect was in vain, i used the help of her friend but turned out all bad.I know most people don't believe in spell casting but believe me this was my last option and the result i most say was impressive.And i know it difficult to believe but A SPELL CASTER Dr brave really made my life much better cos he gave me my family back.He didn't ask me to pay for what he did for me all i was to do, was to provide the materials for the spell and believe that he had the power to help me.Like he said, he was going to do something that will make her reset her love and affection for me just as it has always been.My wife told me she woke up and realized that she should have never left me that i am all she needs.To make thing clear, her life with her high school lover was great before Dr brave castled the spell they had no disagreement on anything.The guy said it himself that why she broke up with him is unexplainable.Only Dr.Brave can do such a thing contact him to solve your problem with his ,or kindly visit he website .CONTACT HIM NOW FOR SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS

  13. Hi I am Curtis Ruben New York (USA). I am 51 years of age I got married before 27 years. 11 years my wife die and I was alone. I am running a software company so in my office there was a Divorcee woman approx 35 years old, after my wife death she came closer to me and slowly we started an affair she is very pretty and beautiful and I really love her as I used to love my wife she also loves me as her husband we were living together at my home from last six months everything was going on very good I was very happy but before two months she started ignoring me and she left my home and whenever I call her she gives me an excuse and finally before 25 days she said to me that she can’t do it further she does not love me I was shocked what happened my heart was broken and literally I cried too much on that day I was mad nothing was right I tried to convinced her a lot but everything was useless, I can’t describe my situation but by chance I got the help of dr aluda, on internet as I have told you I am owner on a software company so I didn’t believe at starting but I did not have any option so I talked to dr aluda he gave me 48 Days time to complete my work and he said that she will come back herself, it happened as he claimed I am very grateful to dr aluda we are now happy as ever before,dr aluda make her know how much we are meet to be together. If you are there having any problems in your have to hurry up and get it touch with dr aluda is there to help you i am so happy to share these my testimony with you.

  14. My name is kate williams. i want to use this opportunity to thank my great doctor who really made my life a pleasurable one today. This great man dr emua brought my husband back to me, i had 2 lovely kids for my husband, about 3 years ago i and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me for one lady. 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, until one day i met a good friend of mine that was also in a situation like me but her problem was her ex-boyfriend who she had an unwanted pregnancy for and he refused to take responsibility and dumped her. she told me that mine was a small case and that i should not worry about it at all so i asked her what was the solution to my problems and she gave me this great man phone number and his email address. i was doubting if this man was the solution, so i contacted this great man and he told me what to do and i did them all, he told me to wait for just two days and that my husband will come crawling on his kneels just for forgiveness so i faithfully did what this great man asked me to do and for sure after two days i heard a knock on the door, in a great surprise i saw him on his kneels and i was speechless, when he saw me, all he did was crying and asking me for forgiveness, from that day, all the pains and sorrows in my heart flew away, since then i and my husband and our lovely kids are happy.that's why i want to say a big thank you to Dr emua This great man made me to understand that there's no problem on earth that has no solution so please if you know that you have this same problem or any problem that is similar, i will advise you to come straight to this great man. you can also CONTACT FOR ANY KIND OF PROBLEM Like

    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/ men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10) Help get people out of jail
    (11) Marriage Spells
    (12) The Miracle spells
    (13) The beauty spells
    (15) The Spell of Attraction
    (16) Evil Eye Spells
    (17) Kissing Spell
    (18) Remove Spells disease

  15. I am full of happiness and delight, on the grounds that I have my significant other once more on my palm. My partner left me for just about 1 year. He doesn't pick or even return my calls and sends..... I tried each approaches to get him back, however no way. Until I met with this extraordinary spell caster called Dr zaros, who did magic for me to get him back in less than 42hrs. I exhort anybody going to this site to run to him promptly for any relationship offer assistance. He is an extremely effective and experience spell caster you can get help can contact this great man Dr zaros on his email: