Campaign watch: Colbert King doesn't want to generalize!


Proceeds to throw A-bomb around:
It's important to understand one key point:

The Washington Post's Colbert King doesn't want to generalize! More specifically, he doesn't want to generalize about the nation's Trump voters.

We know King doesn't want to do that because he tells us so. He says so early in his weekly column in today's Washington Post:
KING (3/5/16): A stipulation: It would be unfair and dishonest to paint all Trump supporters with the same brush.
That heartfelt stipulation comes early in King's piece. But uh-oh! After presenting his stipulation, he proceeds to "paint all Trump supporters" with a rather unpleasant brush.

With which brush does our columnist paint? This is the headline which sits atop his column on line:

"Trump: The authoritarian’s candidate of choice"

(That's the current headline on-line. In our hard-copy Post, the headline employed a milder brush: "What Trump voters are afraid of.")

According to the current headline, Donald Trump is "the authoritarian’s candidate of choice." Presumably, King didn't compose that headline himself. But we'd have to say that it's a fair summary of the column he wrote.

Please note:

That headline doesn't say that all Trump voters are "authoritarian," whatever that unpleasant term will be taken to mean. The headline doesn't even say that most Trump voters fit that unpleasant description.

That said, we'd have to say that King's column does paint with a very broad brush. We'd also say it's terrible work, of a familiar, destructive and dangerous type.

Why are people supporting Candidate Trump? Given what is happening this year, that's an important question.

Not wishing to be "authoritarian" ourselves, we'd assume that the answer to that question would differ depending on which Trump supporter you spoke to. We also note this fact:

We see no sign that King spoke to any Trump supporters in the course of assembling his column. A certain type of semi-"authoritarian" mind will typically function that way.

King plays a familiar game. As he proceeds in his piece, he simply tells us what Trump supporters think—and what he tells us about their imagined thinking tends to be highly unflattering. Highly privileged folk at the top of the heap will frequently function that way.

Could there imaginably be valid reasons explaining some voter's support for Trump? Let's just say that King hasn't worked his imagination real hard in pursuit of that question.

In our view, King's column is horrifically bad, but it's also quite instructive. Overall, we wouldn't describe King as a liberal. But his column shows how we in our liberal tribe tends to function when we're at our intellectual worst, which is where we can be found a large amount of the time.

Because King's column is so instructive, we'll almost surely return to it next week. For today, though, let's only note where King ends up.

King ends his column by saying what follows. As he does, we'd have to say that columnist King is ignoring his own gruesome history:
KING: Trump’s willingness to flout all the conventions of civilized discourse when it comes to out-groups and others that his authoritarian supporters find so threatening is, as Vox observed, a benefit rather than a liability for him.

Even if Trump is out of the picture, Vox’s Taub points out, the authoritarians “will still look for candidates who will give them the strong punitive leadership they desire.”

Thus a seminal finding: There is a sickness in our body politic that Trump’s candidacy exposes.
We agree! Over and over, again and again, Candidate Trump has shown a "willingness to flout all the conventions of civilized discourse when it comes to out-groups and others."

Here's the problem. We're so old that we can remember when King and his horrible Washington in-group spent many years engaged in the same highly destructive practice.

In our view, Colbert King was Donald Trump long before Trump came to town. So were the many others who rode around, year after year, in the insider establishment Washington clown-car with him.

This in-group was assaulting our journalistic conventions long before Candidate Trump came along. Trump has come along in the past year and destroyed things a tiny bit better.

Colbert King and his gruesome in-group were destroying our discourse long ago. His newest column continues to do so, in a way which is pleasing to liberals. Let's close with a basic point:

In the past few months, we've frequently asked a basic question. Here it is:

Can we the liberals discuss modern politics without the use of our bombs?

King said he doesn't want to generalize. Then just like that, he started throwing his A-bomb around.

Again and again, this seems to be the only play our liberal tribe knows. As we've noted many times, we liberals love our various bombs.

We don't leave home without them! It's a vaguely authoritarian practice, and it makes you-know-who strong.


  1. The only thing more exciting than the Republican Party (finally) being torn apart, is knowing that it'll happen to the Democratic Party soon (w/in the next 8 years at the most).
    Whatever is left of the two-party system after the shakeouts, it's good to know HRC will be the last of the neoliberal Presidential candidates from the more left side of our 2-party system.

  2. Nice column and I liked the first comment on HRC too!

  3. Strangely, each tribe sees the other side as authoritarian. Conservatives think that liberal are the authortarians, as demonstrated by
    -- their desire to ban guns,
    -- their support for PC speech,
    -- for having the government decide how health care should be delivered, and
    -- for government regulations in general.

    1. "-their support for PC speech."

      Yes. More "their is no God and there never was" being said in the public square, the better. It isn't PC, but it needs to be said WAY more often.

    2. Remind me how Conservatives aren't authoritarians, the next time an unarmed black man is shot by a police officer.

    3. David, you ignorant slut. Liberals do not have a desire to ban guns. And government regulations are for the health and safety of the public.

    4. Has any prominent liberal politician proposed banning all guns, or promoted PC speech?

    5. Remind me how Conservatives aren't authoritarians, the next time an unarmed black man is shot by a police officer.

      Most such shootings have taken place in cities with Democratic governments. Regardless of what liberals say, it's the cities they govern where unarmed black men are at risk.

    6. Please cite a source for that statistic, David.

    7. Let me do that for him. It's from Prof. Otto Hisass.

    8. What does it matter. We are all living in Babel.

    9. That's what they said in the 1930's in Germany.

    10. Here's a time line of unarmed blacks killed by police over a 12 month period.

      You can check the cities and you'll see that almost all of them are governed by Democrats.

    11. And exactly how much is all the Tea in China, DavidinCal?
      Nice try changing the subject.
      Let's face it, Conservatives (authoritarians) always side with the cops (the authorities) when an unarmed black man is shot. Trying to muddy the debate by telling us which party is in office where this happens, is irrelevant to my statement.
      Again, nice try.
      If it makes you feel better, if I was a moron it might have worked. But, alas, I'm not. And it didn't.

    12. Anon 2:08 -- The Ferguson effect is real. The weakest, most vulnerable Americans are the ones most in need of effective law enforcement.

      According to FBI Director James Comey. “Hundreds of police officers and chiefs” have told Comey that the prospect of getting caught on camera and turned into a viral YouTube video have made them less willing to do their jobs, he said.... 'Where we are stepping back a little bit is at the margins, where we might otherwise have gotten out of our cars and talked to a group. We’re not doing that so much anymore because we don’t feel like being that guy in the video.'”
      Crime in the city of St. Louis is rising. At the end of August, aggravated assaults were up 18 percent over last year. Robberies were up 36 percent.

      Most alarmingly, homicides were up 60 percent — and this in a metropolis that last year suffered the nation's highest homicide rate among cities with more than 100,000 people, according to new U.S. Department of Justice statistics.

      St. Louis is not alone in seeing a spike. In Milwaukee, murders are reportedly up 76 percent. Baltimore, Washington, D.C., New Orleans and Kansas City have all posted double-digit percent increases in this category.

      Yet the city of St. Louis is on pace to hit 200 murders this year — a grim total not seen here in two decades.
      Chicago Shootings and Murders Surged in 2015... There were 468 murders in Chicago in 2015 compared with 416 the year before,

    13. What does this have to do with Authoritarianism?

      Are you suggesting that authoritarianism prevents murder? Maybe you're suggesting that it results in murder? Do you think Trump or any of the conservatives have a serious plan to reduce murders? Are you disagreeing with Somerby's statistics that murders are down but were much higher in the 1990's? What exactly is your point?

    14. I am saying that anti-authoritarianism has caused a big increase in violent crime. A large percentage of the victims are poor black people. The Black Lives matter movement, the demonization of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson (whose shootings were ruled justifiable self-defense) have led to over 100 more murders of innocent people.

    15. Well, David, a statistical wizard such as yourself should know the danger of comparing one year to the next, without looking at long-term trends.

      I can tell you what happened here in KC that caused that "double digit" increase in homicides in 2015 over 2014.

      2014 excperienced a double-digit DECREASE compared to 2013, and 2015 levels were still below 2013 levels, and far below the record set some 25 years ago.

    16. You don't understand what the term authoritarianism means. Google it.

      Of course crime is lower in authoritarian states -- when you restrict freedom you also reduce crime. But totalitarianism is too high a price to pay. Anti-authoritarianism means opposition to such a state. It doesn't make one a criminal. Equating it with crime is just silly.

      The Ferguson effect has been debunked.

    17. "Debunked" is all the more reason for David in Cal to cling to it. It's not like he is willing to believe anything that is actually true.

    18. DavidinCal,
      When you're losing the debate so badly you have to make believe you care about the lives of black Americans, maybe it's time to throw in the towel.

    19. Are you kidding, Anon 1:55? Many liberals seem to be oblivious to the harm done to blacks as an unintended consequence of some liberal policy. Three examples:

      1. Ferguson effect: the head of the FBI says it's real and doing enormous harms to black people. But, Anon 11:30 and Anon 11:54 are happy to call it "debunked". They don't know who debunked it. They don't know why the alleged debunkers are more reliable than the head of the FBI. They go happily on their way, while poor black people get mugged and murdered.

      2. Welfare, the destruction of the family, and a culture of dependency. This has been discussed for many years. The welfare system has been structured in such a way that it (untentionally) encouraged the breakup of black families and the existence of permanent welfare families.

      3. Minimum wage: A high minimum wage keeps black teenagerers unemployed.

      The results bear out my contentions. Look at the places where blacks lead dificult lives, with high crime, poor schools, pollution, and poor city services: Detroit, Flint, Chicago, D.C., Watts, etc. They're all places long government by Democrats. Dems always espouse the highest motives, but the actual result of their governance is misery.

    20. 1) So the FBI says that allowing the police carte blanche helps black people? Do you see anything wrong here at all?

      2) Bullshit. 100% Grade A Prime Bullshit.
      The large majority of broken families comes from poverty and economic instability. Providing economic stability decreases family break-ups and the divorce rate.
      If former-Actuaries weren't so busy rooting for their team they'd admit this obvious truth. It's okay, though, the rest of us get a kick over the former-Actuary schtick.

      3) But you still haven't come up with a solution to getting business owners to stop stiffing labor. Come up with one, and i'll show you how business owners will try to defy it and make it worse for the nations most vulnerable.
      It's who business owners are.

    21. "Minimum wage: A high minimum wage keeps black teenagerers unemployed."

      Damn straight. Anytime you try to get POS business owners to do the right thing, they'll punch down to protect what they think is rightfully theirs.

    22. Perhaps David in Cal is referring to Niall Ferguson.

      Guardian, 10/26/15:
      FBI director James Comey conceded on Monday that he had little evidence to support his theory that a recent increase in crime was caused by heightened scrutiny of the police, as the White House appeared to distance itself from his remarks.
      Addressing police chiefs at a conference in Chicago, Comey said he could not be certain that the so-called “Ferguson effect”, following unrest in the Missouri city after the fatal police shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old last year, had led to a retreat by officers, but said this was “common sense” “The question is, are these kinds of things changing police behavior around the country?” said Comey. “The honest answer is I don’t know for sure whether that’s the case … but I do have a strong sense.”
      Barack Obama’s press secretary, however, said at a White House briefing on Monday that available evidence “does not support the notion that law enforcement officers around the country are shying away from fulfilling their responsibilities”. Law enforcement leaders were “on the contrary” reporting that officers were “dedicated public servants, who on a daily basis are putting their lives on the line to serve and protect the communities that they’re assigned to”, said Josh Earnest.
      Earnest declined to explicitly say he was disagreeing with Comey’s comments and simply reiterated that law enforcement leaders across the country have indicated otherwise. During his speech at the annual convention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Comey said the surge in criticism and protests against the police was “the one theory that to my mind and to my common sense, does explain” the increase in crime in some major cities in 2015.
      Monday’s remarks were the second time in four days he had publicly backed the much-debated theory. On Friday, he told an audience at the University of Chicago Law School that the “YouTube world” in which bystanders frequently film officers on their cellphones was changing police behavior. Citing a “wind of viral videos” depicting police officers at work that he said was blowing through law enforcement, Comey argued that public outcry often follows directly. “That wind is surely changing behavior, common sense tells me,” he said. The FBI director’s remarks prompted sharp criticism among activists and some law enforcement thinkers, who have said there is no solid data to support his theory.
      The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice nonprofit, has published research indicating that a rise in homicides in the St Louis area predated the death in Ferguson of Michael Brown and the ensuing protests. Bruce Frederick, a senior researcher at the Vera Institute of Justice, wrote last month at The Marshall Project that there was also no “compelling evidence that there has been a pervasive increase in homicides that is substantively meaningful”.

    23. Oy!

      "Many liberals seem to be oblivious to the harm done to blacks as an unintended consequence of some liberal policy."

      That must explain their mass stampede to the polls to vote for the GOP. /s

      "Welfare, the destruction of the family, and a culture of dependency."

      And what has your sanctimonious tribe done to alleviate the stresses of chronic poverty on the family and child care? [hint: crickets]

      The GOP wingbat's minimum-wage increase-keeps -black-teens-unemployed canard:

      "Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen
      Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and
      Selectivity in State Panel Data (2011)

      Since estimates in previous national-level studies insufficiently address this issue, they do not provide a credible guide for public policy. Interpretations of
      the quality and nature of the evidence in the existing minimum wage literature, such as those in Neumark and Wascher (2007b, 2008), must be revised substantially. Put simply, our findings indicate that minimum wage increases—in the range that have been implemented in the United States—do not reduce
      employment among teens."

      Needless to say, even if black-teen unemployment is reduced by an increase in the minimum wage, there's no data supporting that the increase KEEPS black teens unemployed.

      Got any more phony claims of liberal policies repressing blacks to refute?

  4. There has been a lot of recent work on authoritarianism. This is a good overview of how Trump supporters generally fit the bill:

    This is not "throwing the A-bomb." There is a cluster of personal character traits worthy of study, and applied where it fits.

    1. Liberals are throwing bombs because they are discussing others in terms of identity, personal traits, not in terms of their behavior.

    2. The picture that heads 'IV.' is pretty awesome.

  5. Bob Somerby now resembles Howard Beale after Beale's meeting with Arthur Jensen.

    1. It wasn't funny the first time you said it either.

    2. Humor aside, it's a nearly-perfect analogy.

    3. Lawrence O'Donnell made some interesting remarks about Al Gore tongiht.

    4. Bob reminds me more of characters played by John Cazale.

    5. @10:51, you remind me more of Trump, tiny dick and big mouth.

    6. @ 8:05, 9:52 & 11;07 - can only throw A-bombs.

    7. I thought 11:07 was throwing a dick bomb.

  6. In our view, Somerby's post is horrifically bad, but it's also quite instructive. Overall, we would describe Somerby as anti-intellectual. And his post shows how pseudo liberals like Somerby tend to function when their anti-intellectualism is combined with liberal self loathing which is where he can be found a large amount of the time.

    1. Then why are you here. Isn't there some other placer where you can be found more often?

    2. Perhaps, like the academics who study authoritarian voters, which is the basis for King's column,@ 9:54 studies anti-intellectual journalists like Somerby.

    3. There is no evidence @9:54 studies anything.

  7. From Mark Kleiman, on the fact that the Sanders campaign knows it cannot win the nomination yet has not told its supporters, some of whom naively believe Sanders will be nominated:

    "It seems to me that second group is, in effect, being cheated out of time and money. I bitterly recall writing what for me at the time was a substantial check to the McGovern campaign in the fall of 1972, in response to a desperate-sounding direct mail appeal and inspired by the idea that I was helping to defeat Richard Nixon. Only later did I learn that McGovern’s advisers, having given up on the Presidency by October, decided to cut back on expenditures to run a surplus, which was then diverted – perfectly legally – to McGovern’s Senate re-election campaign two years later. I felt – still feel – that I’d been flim-flammed.

    Now, there’s no reason to think that the Sanders campaign is contemplating a similar gimmick. But the principle seems to me the same: the managers of the campaign getting people to give, and to work, in the false belief that they’re helping to elect a President. Not OK.

    Footnote Surely this is not a secret from the reporters covering the Sanders campaign. But I’ve seen no hint of it in print. Of course as long as the campaign continues, the people writing about it have stories to write, and of course any one of them who reported what was said to me would get the cold shoulder from Sanders and his staff. Still, isn’t it the job of journalists to tell their readers what they know?"

    1. "the fact that the Sanders campaign knows it cannot win the nomination"

      OOOH! I just *love* invented "facts!"

    2. Nate Silver. Go read the Kleiman article:

    3. You know, people have tried to talk sense in to the Sanders fanboys for quite some time. Hillary began this with a huge lead in super delegates. They prefered the person who has worked hard for the party her entire adult life vs. the guy running as a Democrat for the first time. Go figure.

      But he did have a chance. All he had to do was roll up wins in the primaries and the caucuses. And big, NH-like wins at that.

      But he's not doing it. He's barely winning the states after NH and Vermont that he is winning, and getting absolutely clobbered everywhere else.

      Consider yesterday. He won Kansas and Nebraska. Those two states could hold Democratic caucuses in two broom closets -- one in Wichita and one in Omaha.

      Hillary won Louisiana. Big time. Guess who picked up more delegates yesterday? Nope, not the guy playing catch-up.

    4. I don't get it. Why would Bernie stay in the race just to attack Clinton and weaken her in the general election? Does he think Trump would be a better president? Louis CK offered a heartfelt plea to the nihilist faction on the left, asking them not to vote for Trump as a big F.U. The same applies to Bernie.

    5. Maybe the anti-neoliberal stance of Sander's supporters is an actual thing.
      I think that's an answer worth pondering, rather than "get on the inevitability train and root for your own slaughter."

    6. Yep. That Sanders guy is acting like HR Clinton did after it was clear that Obama had won in 2008. And those Sanders supporters are as big a bunch of sore loser chumps as the Clintonites.

      Those of us who supported Obama and are now helping Clinton win know this best of all.

    7. Except it wasn't clear that Obama had won. In fact, Clinton had more popular votes and arguably as many delegates as Obama going into the convention. It was largely the manipulation by the DNC Rules Committee that gave the nomination to Obama.

      It is hard to call Hillary Clinton a sore loser when she did everything she could to help Obama win after he got the nomination. Many of her supporters do carry a grudge over two things: (1) the way Obama's people behaved during and after the primaries, and (2) the way the DNC behaved. Those who supported Obama, if they are honest, will acknowledge that there was some raw stuff that occurred (for example, the photo of Jon Favreau groping the life-size cardboard of Hillary, calling Bill Clinton a racist, claiming the Clinton people darkened a photo of Obama, etc.).

      It is one thing to be a sore loser and quite another to hold a legitimate grudge about what occurred. To be a sore loser you have to have lost. Clinton didn't but Sanders has. Calling for Clinton to quit when she was still able to win was one of the many grievances Clinton supporters held against Obama's people.

      You seem to be pretending that the Sanders supporters who are misbehaving now are different people than those Obama supporters who did ugly stuff in 2008. These are the same people, setting a bad example for the idealistic kids who don't have any sense of history.

      Those who supported Obama and are now helping Clinton win have no idea how those who supported Clinton in 2008 felt about what Obama did.

    8. The biggest difference between Sanders supporters today, and Obama supporters in 2008, is that Sanders supporters today don't support a neoliberal for President.

    9. "Clinton didn't but Sanders has."

      Proof positive some of the Clintonistas are a big problem for her to this day.

    10. @ 5:04, I might say that the biggest difference is that Obama supporters in 2008 did not back a loser.

    11. There is no math by which Sanders can win unless Clinton stops her campaign. This is not my opinion but that of Nate Silver. Sanders has lost. Why is he still running?

    12. There is no math by which Clinton didn't lose the Democratic race in 2008 except perhaps the rough rule of thumb math Bob Somerby applies to NAEP math scores.

    13. 8:26 PM,
      It could be he believes what he says. I could see that being difficult to understand for supporters of other candidates.

    14. 7:11 PM,
      Same thing.
      "Loser" is just another way of saying "not a neoliberal" in today's* Democratic Party.

      *this will change during the HRC Presidency. The Democratic Party (like the Republican Party, even sooner) will come apart. HRC will be the last neoliberal to run from the more left side of the two-party system, no matter how it shakes out.

    15. 10:07 - you're a broken record. Same BS 2x in this combox, throwing N-bombs and reading tea leaves.

    16. 10:43 PM,
      Are you denying that HRC is a neoliberal? If so, will you also deny she's a woman?

    17. Of course she is not a neoliberal. She believes in government regulation of trade, just like every other Democrat.

    18. I'm sure her Justice Department (like that of the current Democrat in the White House) will charge the poor with criminal counts if they break the laws imposed by those regulations of trade.

    19. The poor are engaging in international trade?

  8. I recall a bumper sticker years ago that stated:
    Rush said it
    I believe it
    That settles it.

    Call them what you will but that crowd does exist. The total suck ups who gravitate towards the loud and obnoxious. I don't think they make up a majority of Trump's voters however.

  9. Shorter Somerby:

    Colbert King once said something mean about Clinton and of course that means he must have also done something, even if it was nothing, to Gore.

  10. The Wayback Machine - KING (11/4/00): The eleventh-hour disclosure of Bush's arrest may hurt him. But it doesn't add luster to the Democratic ticket. At this stage, the best thing Al Gore and his running mate, Joe Lieberman, have going for them is that they don't have to run on George Bush's Texas record or the Republican Party platform. Beyond that it gets hard.
    It wasn't always this way with a Democratic ticket. The 1960 John F. Kennedy presidential campaign caught the imagination of many in my college-age generation. Unlike this year's race for the White House, the 1960 presidential election was about more than keeping Republicans out of the White House. We were enthusiastic about the Kennedy-Johnson ticket. We actually liked the candidates and what their campaign stood for. When Lyndon Johnson and running mate Hubert Humphrey sought the White House in 1964, many of us also eagerly voted for them. Again, not just because we feared what Barry Goldwater might do to the country. Johnson and Humphrey were regarded as men of conviction who would fight hard for economic opportunity and racial justice. The Democratic standard-bearers didn't have to demand our allegiance; they had earned it.
    Excitement with Democratic tickets didn't stop there. Jimmy Carter's integrity was seen as the perfect antidote to Richard Nixon's Watergate corruption. And while Walter Mondale's presidential bid was unsuccessful, his candidacy evoked strong support among his party's core constituencies because of his strong support for basic civil rights, working people and the poor. Bill Clinton, for much the same reasons, enjoys the same kind of loyalty—his personal flaws notwithstanding.
    Not so with Gore and Lieberman. That may help explain the lukewarm response to the Gore-Lieberman ticket among the black rank and file, as the White House learned this week from a number of African American pastors. Their warning shouldn't have come as a surprise. Compared with Democrats from Kennedy to Clinton, Gore and Lieberman have done relatively little to earn the trust and confidence of the Democratic Party's base.


  11. This morning the Huffington Post says Bernie is proud to be Jewish and complains about Hillary's voice.

    1. Sorry to interrupt you "HuffPo Hates Hillary"
      but I believe the article about Hillary was critical of MSNBC for interrupting HRC's speech to allow their panel to make comments about her voice.

      Lawrence O'Donnell was involved. He made some comments about Al Gore at the same time. The latter fact may insure coverage here at the Howler.

    2. HuffPo pretends to criticize MSNBC but is actually giving wider audience to the negative remarks about Hillary's voice. There were so many positive things they could have said about Hillary but somehow nothing else made it into their news items.

      For example, she had an actual, specific plan for improving schools. Bernie spouted platitudes. She defended teachers, Bernie didn't. That's news. Bernie gets kudos for saying he's proud to be Jewish, yet he doesn't practice his religion. Hillary gets mocked for saying she prays -- her religion is what she says has gotten her past bitterness about the relentless attacks on her and her husband and it is her inspiration for continuing to help others and her reason for pursuing the presidency. Her faith actually matters to her. Bernie's, not so much.

  12. Her religion is the reason she's pursuing the Presidency? On top of that the other guy isn't religious enough?

    1. Her religion motivates her to help other people and engage in social change. There is a long liberal religious tradition of service to others. It defines her sense of purpose in the world.

      Bernie is secular. There is no way around that for him -- no amount of reference to the Holocaust can disguise it.

      But my problem was with Huffington Post. They mock her religion while pretending Bernie has any connection to his.

      I am not religious. I don't vote for anyone based on religion, one way or the other, except the people who think God talks to them and those who want to combine church and state. I dislike the way Huffington Post bends over backwards to give Bernie a hand instead of truthfully representing where he stands on religion. I would respect him more if he were truthful.

  13. There is no God, and there never was.
    I'll opt for the realist over the superstitious, thanks.

  14. 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:

  15. NEW! Now You Can Stop Your Break Up, Divorce or Lovers Rejection…Even If Your Situation Seems Hopeless! My husband said he no longer loved me at the end of January this year and i was hurt and heart broken i felt like my life was about to end and I almost committed suicide, I was emotionally down for a very long time. Thanks to a spell caster called Dr Frank Ojo, which I meet online, on one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet and I came across a lot of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb, cure cancer and other sickness, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. I also come across one particular testimony and it was about a woman called Sonia, she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days and at the end of her testimony she dropped Dr Frank Ojo mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give it a try and I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 48 hours, my husband came back to me and we solved our issues, we are even happier than before. Dr Frank Ojo is really a gifted man and I will not stop testifying about him because he is a wonderful man and so powerful... If you have any problem and you are looking for solution to solve all your problems. Great Dr Frank Ojo can also offer any types of help like Reuniting of marriage and relationship, Curing of all types of Diseases, Court Cases, Pregnancy Spell, Spiritual protection,winning of lottery and lot's more. you can contact him on his Email address: ,or call his mobile number: +2348072370762, if you have any problem contact him, I give you 100% guarantee that he will help you. Name: Clare Burrow, From:UK.

  16. During my search on GOOGLE for help to get my ex lover whom will got divorced back, i came across this wonderful man called DR.AGBAZARA who did a nice job by helping me to get my divorced husband back within 48hours.. I never believe that such things like this can be possible but now i am a living testimony to it because AGBAZARA TEMPLE actually brought my lover back, If you are still doubting why not contact DR.AGBAZARA TEMPLE on email : OR him on +2348104102662, Then i promise you that after 48hours you will have reasons to celebrate like me

  17. Hello, is good I inform all the men and guys out there, that sometime we all make mistakes in our relationship and made our relationship to be broken and is also our responsibility to make it work by seeking for solution to it, I'm very happy today to tell you little of my relationship problem, i cheated once on my wife and she caught me and she was ready to end our marriage because i truly love her i quickly seek for solution to stop her that is when i came across Dr.Ekpen temple who has help so many people restore their broken marriage and relationship i also contact him today my marriage is restored, I'm going to drop his contact so that does having the same issues can contact him for solution on ( or +2347050270218.

  18. I would like to advice any one out there who is experiencing love trauma , Financial difficulty, Child bearing , Miscarriages and so many more. All thanks to Dr. Madu for the good works he has been doing for my family and Friends, For I will always be grateful to Him for the his good works. He helped me with a spell that brought back my broken relationship and also i was able to have a baby after so many miscarriages. You could contact Dr. Madu to on his email: ( maduutemple @ gmail . com )or his Whatsapp : +234 8107 547 068 for his nice spell work.

  19. Just few weeks ago I saw a comment about Dr. Ekpen Temple, someone talking about how he has help him in his relationship break up, I also contacted him because i was facing the same problem in my relationship, today i can boldly recommend Dr. Ekpen Temple to someone who is also facing break up in his or her relationship to contact him for help today because he has help me restore my relationship back to normal, here is he contact details ( or WHATSAPP him on +2347050270218