REAFFIRMATION OF DISBELIEF: Silly suspension of disbelief!


Part 2—"Feminist hero" returns:
We humans! When we read a favorite novel or watch a favorite TV soap, experts say that we engage in "the willing suspension of disbelief."

In all candor, we're not sure how "willing" this well-known proclivity is. But how might the impulse be defined? We'll let the leading authority on the non-rational process explain it:
The term suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief has been defined as a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe something surreal; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment. The term was coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement concerning the implausibility of the narrative. Suspension of disbelief often applies to fictional works of the action, comedy, fantasy, and horror genres.
Does current American "news reporting" fall into the "horror genre?" We're going to leave that obvious question for another day.

Meanwhile, leave it to Coleridge! According to the leading authority, he noted that we humans are willing to "suspend judgement concerning the implausibility" of fantastic tales.

According to that leading authority, we're inclined to "suspend [our] critical faculties and believe something surreal." This seems to involve the "sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment."

This description recalls Professor Harari's account of the way our disordered species, Homo sapiens, came to gain control of the planet. Seventy thousand years ago, chance mutations gave us the ability to invent and affirm sweeping group "fictions." Or so Professor Harari says, explaining that this emerging ability allowed our somewhat murderous ancestors to cooperate in much larger groups, driving all other human populations into extinction.

Whatever! More generally, we the humans are strongly inclined, in various settings, to suspend our disbelief—to disconnect our critical/rational judgment. We may do this when we watch Days of Our Lives on our giant TVs, or when we read silly screeds from tribal leaders in our silliest newspaper, the Hamptons-based New York Times.

It can get very silly in the Times, but the novelized narratives found in the Times tend to support tribal verities. We liberals may tend to suspect our critical judgment in the face of such offerings, getting swept along in the flow.

We may do this "for the sake of enjoyment" and for the sake of tribal unity. Consider what happened on Sunday past, when the Times published a piece which might be called, "Return of the Feminist Hero."

(We say "return" because of this earlier "Feminist Hero" piece in the new Salon.)

True feminist heroes are of course very much worth admiring. The movement has a great deal to teach, as it has done in the past.

That said, the "feminist hero" presented this Sunday may be a peculiar choice for this status. In an essay for the Sunday Review, Jill Filipovic dropped this designation on—who else?—Stormy Daniels. Again!

Is there anything "feminist" or "heroic" about the aforementioned Daniels? Those would of course be matters of judgment. Such questions can never be settled.

We'll focus instead on the way this New York Times scribe told you the Stormy story. When we ardent and fiery liberals sign on to narratives like this, are we perhaps displaying "a willingness to suspend [our] critical faculties and believe something surreal?"

The Filipovic piece appeared beneath this headline: "Stormy Daniels, Feminist Hero." The essay began in a basically accurate way:
FILIPOVIC (8/26/18): Let’s take a moment for Stormy Daniels.

On Tuesday, Michael D. Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws, charges stemming from payments he made to two women, one of them Ms. Daniels, with whom Donald Trump is said to have had an affair. Mr. Cohen, a former lawyer for Mr. Trump, says he made the payments at the direction of the president, in an effort to influence the 2016 election.

It’s an extraordinary admission, and an extraordinary political moment—not just because of what it means for Mr. Trump. It marks an unanticipated feminist turning point. Ms. Daniels is an adult film star and, like the president, an unapologetic self-promoter. Hers is not a female archetype that has historically garnered much respect, trust or sympathy. Yet here she is, an imperfect, entirely self-possessed woman telling her story with clarity and without shame. And here we are, actually listening to her.
So far, so mostly accurate! Let's review what's been said:

There's nothing legally wrong with being an adult film star, though it may or may not seem like a feminist act.

There's also nothing legally wrong with being "an unapologetic self-promoter," although our society is sinking beneath the weight of this widespread cultural impulse. This rarely looks "heroic," except to dopes, when it's practiced by men.

Beyond that, Daniels is plainly "telling her story," or at least some version of same, without any hint of shame. Whether she's telling her story "with clarity" may be a point of dispute—but of one thing we can be certain:

Without any question, we the nudniks are indeed, and without any doubt, "actually listening to her." If you subscribe to cable TV, you really don't have much choice!

(We'll note one factual point. Is Trump "said to have had an affair" with Daniels? According to Daniels, they had sex on one occasion. It's just as easy to type that fact as it is to embellish the tale.)

So far, so basically accurate! But as the Times narration continues, we hit out first puzzlement point:
FILIPOVIC (continuing directly): Mr. Trump’s own incompetence, inexperience and misogyny didn’t stop his ascent to the White House; neither could a woman who spent her life cultivating capability, expertise and political pedigree. The usual rules don’t seem to apply to Mr. Trump. And under the usual rules, a woman who so thoroughly breaks norms of female decorum and political propriety would be shamed into silence.

Which is why there is so much power in the fact that Ms. Daniels does not believe her job or her involvement with Mr. Trump or the payoff is her shame to carry. She wants him held accountable, and the justice system is actually stepping in. She is refusing to slink away, despite being paid to do exactly that in a pattern we’ve seen too many times from influential men seeking to maintain their dominance and avoid responsibility.
In Filipovic's fourth paragraph, we're told that Daniels refuses to be "shamed into silence" by "norms of female decorum." As a general matter, that sounds like a good way to go.

But by paragraph 5, our narrative is starting to take on a possibly puzzling aspect. We're told that Daniels wants Trump to be "held accountable" for something' The problem:

We aren't quite told what it is he should be held accountable for.

We're also told that Daniels doesn't want Trump to "maintain [his] dominance and avoid responsibility." Again, we aren't exactly told what he'd be avoiding responsibility for. We aren't told how he would be maintaining dominance by having paid Daniels the big sack of cash she'd been pursuing for years.

At this point, our story is taking on a familiar old sound, and especially so if we suspend our critical judgment. In the next paragraph, our story is perhaps a bit imprecise again. Here's what the Sunday Times offered:
FILIPOVIC (continuing directly): Ms. Daniels is a sex worker, making her the kind of “bad woman,” scorned for her work, who is not often believed when she indicts a powerful man.
Is Daniels a "sex worker?" The term strikes us as a bit imprecise in this particular context. But again, we're told that Daniels wants to "indict a powerful man," namely Donald J. Trump.

Once again, we aren't quite told what it is she wants to indict Trump for. What is it that the fellow has done? This basic question keeps getting glossed as our story sweeps us along—as we're invited to suspend our disbelief and our critical judgment.

In our view, Donald J. Trump is a deeply disordered person. That said, in this rather familiar story, what exactly is he being "indicted" for? For what is he being "held accountable?" We ask this because, according to Daniels, she had sex with Trump exactly once, in July 2006, and she has said, on network TV, that this admittedly grisly act was "entirely consensual."

At this, their first of their two meetings, Donald J. Trump had floated the idea that Daniels might appear on The Celebrity Apprentice. After that, according to Daniels, she and Trump had sex.

One year later, they met again, according to Daniels. According to Daniels, Trump said, unconvincingly, that he was still working on that TV deal. According to Daniels, they didn't have sex on that second occasion, and they never met again.

Four years later, Daniels began seeking money for the chance to "tell her story" about the time when she had sex with the famous unattractive fellow whose wife had just given birth. (Anderson Cooper, interviewing Daniels on 60 Minutes: "In May 2011, Daniels agreed to tell her story to a sister publication of In Touch magazine for fifteen thousand dollars.")

In 2016, with Trump even more famous, she began trying to sell her pointless but slimy story again.

These are a few of the basic outlines of the story as told by Daniels. (Trump denies that they ever had sex.) For ourselves, we're unclear which part of this basic story is either "heroic" or "feminist." But we think the Times should have been much more clear on the question of what Trump is supposedly being indicted for.

We also don't know why anyone is inclined to listen to a scumbag like this. We're forced to listen to Donald J. Trump because, helped along by people like Cooper, he managed to get himself elected president.

For that reason, we're forced to listen to the scumbag Trump, and to his frequently ludicrous TV lawyer. But why exactly are we listening to the scumbag Daniels, and to her patently ridiculous TV lawyer? We're seven grafs into the New York Times narrative and we have no real idea.

Can we tell you something about those seven paragraphs? They seem to be telling a very familiar, indeed iconic, story—the story of the innocent young woman defiled. Unfortunately, this is a very important cultural and historical story, one which has been told in famous novels, one which is being acted out all over the world today.

The Times almost seems to be selling that story as it glosses Daniels' tale! If we suspend all disbelief and all critical judgment, we may even get swept along in the claim of feminist heroism derived from this bowdlerized tale.

Isn't the real story this?

Daniels wanted to get on TV, so she BLEEPed an unattractive old man whose wife had just given birth to the couple's first child. When the old goat wouldn't give her the TV spot, she began trying to sell her utterly pointless story, for cash.

However gruesome, her one sex act was "entirely consensual," she told Anderson Cooper. She also said this to Cooper on that ridiculous night:
COOPER (3/25/18): A lot of people are using you for a lot of different agendas.

DANIELS: They're trying to. Like, oh, you know, "Stormy Daniels comes out #MeToo."

This is not a MeToo. I was not a victim. I've never said I was a victim. I think trying to use me to, to further someone else's agenda does horrible damage to people who are true victims.
Five months later, our silliest newspaper comes along with our feminist hero. In reality, she's the one who BLEEPed the old goat in hopes of getting on TV, then tried to humiliate his family by "telling her story" for cash.

Along the way, Daniels has come up with exciting stories about being threatened and otherwise misused. Her lawyer seems to have abandoned the story of the thug on the parking lot, though the story may return and it could even be true, since everything imaginably is.

That said, Daniels is, at least on her face, a scumbag not unlike Trump. Her TV lawyer is visibly demonic, perhaps even more so than Trump's.

Despite these matters, it's easy to get swept along in the willing suspension of disbelief. At times like these, we humans are inclined to want to believe—and our own tribe is full of people who are willing to hand us our latest group fictions.

Our view? It seems to us that we all have a citizen's duty not to suspend our rational judgment. That said, it's easy to buy into a tale, as Coleridge so thoughtfully said, and the world is full of ridiculous people who have perhaps been swept along or who are willing to play you.

Tomorrow: Thinking the unthinkable, Part 1 and Part 2


  1. "It seems to us that we all have a citizen's duty not to suspend our rational judgment."

    Bob, dear. No one cares about "Stormy Daniels" or the rest of this shit.

    Well, obviously lib-zombies do care, but they are not citizens in any reasonable sense, nor do they have any duties. They're just walking dead, following the leaders of their death-cult.

    1. "Google" is rigged, Mao Cheng Ji. Did you know that? I certainly did not. But I'm working real hard to not be a lib-zombie anymore.

    2. ""Google" is rigged, Mao Cheng Ji. Did you know that? "

      I don't know what "Google" is, but Google most certainly is rigged, and I most certainly did know it.

      "I certainly did not. But I'm working real hard to not be a lib-zombie anymore."

      Good for you, but I don't reckon you're a zombie. You're a dembot. And you can only work real hard as a dembot... Tsk, bummer...

    3. Damn, Mao, you are such a genius. How come you never mentioned it before? About Google being rigged and all?

    4. Thank you, dear, but no need to exaggerate.

      Are you sure I haven't? You read all my comments, eh? Thanks. Why, it hasn't come up, I guess. And what of it?

    5. I don't know, evidently it's very important to this lunatic occupying the WH.. Just though you might be able to enlighten us all.

    6. It's just a small part of the ongoing establishment campaign to overturn the presidential election.

      It's been talked about a lot, and if you're still not enlightened, it's only because you're a dembot, my dear.

    7. The Trump administration is “taking a look” at whether Google and its search engine should be regulated by the government, Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s economic adviser, said Tuesday outside the White House. “We’ll let you know,” said Kudlow. “We’re taking a look at it.”


      Someone need to throw a net around this lunatic, fast.

    8. Dear dembot, Google and its search engine have always been regulated by the government, and most likely always will be. What's so special or unusual about it?

    9. I don't know genius, why don't you ask Larry.

      Also, don't forget about the strawberries.

    10. Dear dembot, why would I be asking Larry about your zombie media bullshit?

    11. Is there any reason you constantly resort to double talk, Mao? Larry, that would be Larry Kudlow, who currently holds the title of Director of the National Economic Council made an official statement, to wit, “We’re taking a look at it.”

      What precisely is he going to "take a look at"?

    12. Dear dembot, to find the answer to your question, you'd need to read something outside your zombie-media. To read those who would actually quote the question Larry was answering with his "We’ll let you know".

      You could try for example, but I'm sure you're not allowed: being the dembot and all...

    13. I know the answer Bozo clown boy. And we're laughing at you jackasses.

      Three, he alleges conspiracies that are hidden and nefarious and linked to those scapegoated populations.

      Four, he spreads a sense of victimizations among those fervent supporters.

      And five, he asserts the need to exert heretofore unprecedented power to protect his victim class from the conspiracies and the scapegoated populations.

    14. Larry Kudlow knows as much about how the internet works as he does about economics. That would be nothing.
      If you took Larry Kudlow's investment advice for the past 20 years, you'd be a millionaire today. Provided you started as a multimillionaire 20 years ago.

  2. An aspect of TDS is that it drives other concerns out of the brain. Thus, the plight of black school children, or abused women, or starving Venezuelans, or unemployed workers is important ONLY if it reflects badly on Donald Trump. So, Stormy Daniels is a feminist hero, Margaret Sanger is forgotten.

    1. Maybe you forgot about Margaret but the rest of us still celebrate her birthday.

    2. Yes David, you treasonous bastard.

      We have enough on our hands trying to fight your party's relentless continual efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

      Can you help out with that please?

      A panel of three federal judges in North Carolina ruled Monday the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that favors Republicans, and said it may require districts to be redrawn before the November elections.

      Republicans hold 10 of the state's 13 seats in the House of Representatives, and a redrawn map could put more seats in play for Democrats -- potentially affecting control of the House.

  3. Here is why it is important that Daniels tell her side of things. Somerby says:

    "Daniels wanted to get on TV, so she BLEEPed an unattractive old man whose wife had just given birth to the couple's first child. When the old goat wouldn't give her the TV spot, she began trying to sell her utterly pointless story, for cash."

    This is Somerby's perception of what happened, but it is colored by Trump's claims and by his own views about what women like Daniels are like. Her side is somewhat different.

    First, she admits that she did want to get on TV. What is wrong with that? She had already been on TV and she had been in films (including non-porn films), so that was a realistic goal. Trump controlled access to his TV show.

    She claims that she did not sleep with Trump to get on TV. She claims that she met with him to make her case that she should appear on his show, then she went to the bathroom (a natural act after consuming drinks during a meeting), and when she came out, Trump was sitting unclothed on the bed. She then slept with him to prevent a scene, trying to preserve any chance she might appear on his show. HE made it obvious that sleeping with him was a quid pro quo, but HE also made it clear that he expected sex and saying no, then wrestling with a 6 foot 2 man who expects sex isn't pleasant for any woman. The facts about Trump's family life are HIS concern, not hers, especially given that she says she did not initiate sex with him.

    Then she says that nothing came of the meeting so she forgot about it for about five years. Then she told a story about the incident on a talk show and was offered the chance to publish the story. Nothing came of that either. Another five years went by and Trump was running for office and she was offered the chance to sell her story again. Her attorney (Keith Davidson) steered her instead to signing an NDA with Cohen for $130,000, much less than a tabloid might have paid her for the story about her encounter with Trump. A threat by a goon in a parking lot induced her to sign the NDA instead of pursuing other options.

    Whether she sought to sell her story or not, it is her right to do so. She now claims that not only was she coerced into signing the NDA, but Trump has not been abiding by it himself and did not actually sign it. That makes the NDA void. Nevertheless, she is being threatened with $4 million in damages for violating the NDA, so she has gone to court to get that NDA set aside. She is requesting no money in her lawsuit.

    But, these claims which are part of her side of things are not part of the picture Somerby has presented here -- nor has he ever addressed them. He only sees Trump's side of things.

    This is why Daniels is doing something important to benefit ALL women. She is strongly representing her side of a situation that typical only sees the man's perspective. She has a side too.

    As Samantha Bee pointed out on a recent show, women who sexually assaulted typically are constrained by mandatory arbitration clauses in their work contracts that make it impossible for them to talk about what happened to them. That permits the men involved to repeat their behavior, just as Trump as done, paying whatever damages arise but going on as if nothing had happened. So no one knows how prevalent such behavior is. Women are routinely bought off in one way or another (NDA's, settlements with nondisclosure, sealed arbitration). Somerby appears unaware of this FACT about how sexual assault is handled in the workplace, by wealthy and powerful men. Women do not have the option to tell their side of things without forfeiting career options, redress of any kind, continued participation in their field. What could Trump do to these women if they made a fuss? They understandably didn't want to find out.

    That is why Stormy Daniels is important to women.

    1. But isn't the point that this is not sexual assault? This was consensual, she explicitly said it was consensual. There's no sexual assault. But to you she is important to women because women who are sexually assaulted get forced to signed non-disclosure agreements?

      You talk about women who are sexually assaulted and what Trump would do if they made a fuss about that sexual assault but this is not a sexual assault, it was a consensual tryst as she explicitly stated.

      You're conflating this consensual tryst with sexual assault.

    2. "Sexual assault" is a crime. No contract, arbitration clause, or NDA prevents anyone from reporting a sexual assault.

    3. If you work for a company and your boss assaults you, if you go to the police, you lose your job. If you go to HR, you are subject to binding arbitration by the terms of your employment (at most companies). Sexual harassment is illegal too but how many women receive legal remedies when harassed? Not many.

      What prevented Daniels from reporting her sexual encounter to the media? First lack of media interest, next a physical threat to herself and her daughter, finally a payoff that was not fully honored by Trump (she had to shut up but he didn't), and which included a penalty of $4 million if she talked.

      Historically, women are not believed when they report sexual assault, and then they are stigmatized.

      What is Somerby doing here? He does not believe Stormy Daniels and he is stigmatizing her for what happened. She is the grifter, the con artist, the shameful person. This is what always happens to women who report things. Until #METOO, which has been trying to say that women should be believed (which means their claims should be investigated and an open mind needs to be kept until facts are in), and men should be stigmatized when they assault women.

    4. Stormy says the sex was consensual, but many women who are assaulted say that because they do not want to see themselves as a victim.

      How can it be consensual if he took his clothes off without invitation and was present in the bedroom when she came out of the bathroom, so she could not say no and get by him without conflict?

      Physical threat can be implied and women are afraid that men will hurt them if they become angry. We have many accounts of Trump screaming at people in a rage, verbally abusing them. There is nothing to suggest that Trump would stay calm if she told them "there must be some misunderstanding" at that point. From her perspective, she says, it was easier to just go along with it. She mentions that it was her fault because she shouldn't have been alone with him in a hotel room.

      There are many occupations where job interviews are conducted in hotel rooms (at trade shows for example or conventions or academic meetings). She accepted responsibility because she chose to go to his room. When the article cited says Trump should accept responsibility, this is an example of the responsibility that is his. If the facts are as stated by Daniels, he maneuvered her into sex. He didn't ask, he assumed. Men do this on dates too, and make it harder for women to say no without making a scene, confident that the woman's fear of conflict will get them what they want. It isn't rape but it isn't consent either.

    5. So you are saying it is sexual assault? That is where you diverge from Somerby most likely then.

    6. No, I am saying she was coerced into voluntarily having sex with Trump, but she didn't give affirmative consent. It might be assault under California's new laws about consent but probably not under other state laws.

      Somerby seems to think Daniels got her extra large body parts in order to entrap unwary men such as Trump into trading sex for TV appearances. He thinks she only used Trump in order to sell a story to the tabloids (which she somehow never did) because she is a con artist, then she hired an even bigger con artist to shake down Trump for money. Because the only thing Daniels loves more than porn is money. I suspect that is a version of what Somerby thinks about all women. They use sex to get your stuff but don't really love anyone but themselves and buying clothes. There are websites for guys who think things like that about women.

    7. Elba, you make many claims. Perhaps they have the whiff of factuality, but you do us readers a disservice by not linking to the sources by which you draw your conclusions.

      Somerby has his opinions, and you have yours. I would, just for once, like to see the evidence that supports your claims.

      Some of the things you write, such as “Whether she sought to sell her story or not, it is her right to do so,” seem to gloss over the important fact that Daniels (not to mention Avennati) seems to be in it for the money, despite your contention that “She is requesting no money in her lawsuit.” Which lawsuit? Is she really being sued for 4 mil because of an NDA?

      Did Trump “maneuver her” into sex? She said herself that it was consensual. Dang, this is a little less boring than mm arguing with Mao, and that’s only because I’m writing it.


    8. She is the source for her side of things. She has been interviewed, you know.

    9. It was consensual if she is the source. Therefore, tying her consensual case to assault cases as a justification for turning her into modern day feminist hero is illogical and indicates a willing suspension of disbelief which was the point from the beginning.

  4. The way Somerby describes things, Daniels raped Trump. He was just minding his own business and she forced him to have sex with her, despite his poor wife at home. Then she tried to humiliate his family by publishing the account for money!

    Does Somerby know what the word scumbag means? Yes, it refers to a contemptible person, but it originally referred to a used condom. It is a male term, in the same way that twat is a female term.

    Somerby is ascribing typically male behavior to Daniels, but women just don't have the physical ability to force sex on men the way men can force women. And we are speaking of a man who has been accused by 27+ women of sexual assault and who himself, on video, confessed to pussy-grabbing.

    But Stormy Daniels is the seductress who forced Trump to sleep with her so she could be on TV. Right.

    Who thinks this way?

  5. Let's hear an air on the G-string:

    No, not that G-string! This G-string:

  6. "Her TV lawyer is visibly demonic"

    Somerby urges rationality and then says something ridiculous like this.

  7. "What is it that the fellow has done?"

    You mean the "scumbag?" (Somerby's word, not mine). What has the scumbag done?

    He is accused of unwanted sexual advances, sexual harassment, by dozens of women. He has proclaimed that he just "grabs their p***y" and he can get away with it. He bragged about his hundreds of sexual encounters, some while married, others not. All of this was public knowledge. And he got elected, running against the most accomplished woman politician in history. Had Hillary's life story contained any of the scummy lasciviousness of Trump's, she would have been called all kinds of names. Think of the words we have to describe sexually active or promiscuous women, then see if you can think of any that are only applied to men.

    Of course, this is all a backdrop to the specifics of the Stormy Daniels story. Was she coerced to have sex? She says no. (Incidentally, wouldn't a full-blown scumbag claim she was coerced?) Was she threatened? Somerby tends to doubt it. But if true, it's a significant fact.

    At any rate, Somerby seems to view Trump and Daniels as equal scumbags. But it was Trump the billionaire who sought and obtained the presidency, and he kept shtupping through life at will, with his lawyer waiting with an NDA outside the bedroom door. Did he not ever consider, at any point up to and including those long ago faraway days of 2006 when he was a young buck of 68, that eventually one of those conquests would kiss and tell? He was always more than eager to share his conquests with the (tabloid) press when it suited him. Now the tables are turned.

    Does all of this make Clifford a feminist hero? That is ultimately a matter of opinion, which is what Filipovic has written. But no one should assume that this opinion is shared by many or even a small number on the left. Moreover, her op-ed doesn't ask us to "suspend [our] critical faculties and believe something surreal." If it is unconvincing, that is a fault of her logical argumentation. She does try to make the case.

    Ultimately, more people probably see Clifford as a thorn in Trump's side, someone using Trump's own tactics against him.

  8. Yeah, that's why he says at the end of the clip, "The Hopis aren't extinct."

  9. Hello everyone, I must start by saying that I didn’t go into marriage with expectation that it will fail after 8 years. I and my spouse where not compassionate to ourselves. Trying to work out my marriage was self-defeating, we don’t really know why we no longer find ourselves attractive anymore. All we secretly thought was divorce, we couldn’t agree or communicate anymore, it was emotionally difficult moments when we face each other in the bedroom.
    I know that a phycologist might not be able to help me go through divorce because it has never worked for me. Divorcing could traumatize our kids, I can’t let them be emotionally crippled.
    I remember my grandmother once told me that not issues can be resolved physically, I should try solving some issues spiritually through a well-known spiritual doctor.
    I can provide evidence that my life and marriage got more better and interesting with so much love and fulfilled promises after Dr. Wakina lighted up our fire with a magnificent love spell with the aid of
    The spell work I never regarded rewrote my story. I’m touched beyond words, thanks Dr. Wakina.

  10. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930

  11. I Can't still believe that i got cured from Genital Herpes through herbal treatment from Dr Oyagu who I met through the internet, I actually couldn't believe it at first because it sounded impossible to me knowing how far I have gone just to get rid of it. Dr Oyagu send me his medicine which I took as instructed and here I am living a happy life once again, a big thanks to Dr Oyagu, I am sure there are many herbal doctors out there but Dr Oyagu did it for me, contact him , also call or whatsApp him on +2348101755322

  12. I'm 61 years old, I contracted hpv in 2011' I has be taking lot treatment for it and embarrassed some months ago the wart stated coming out seriously, I used lot recommendation because there was lot warts around my anus and was so . but today I'm totally happy I got the virus eliminated by using natural treatment from Dr Onokun herbal center after his treatment I got cured. all the warts went away' seriously believed Dr Onokun he have the cure for human papillomavirus because he has eliminated hpv been in my body since 2011, Dr Onokun make it possible for me. Here is Dr Onokun email: 

  13. San Francisco 49ers Game Live Streaming Football Online 49ers Gameday Online The San Francisco 49ers are a professional NFL team based in the San Francisco Bay Area. You can watch San Francisco 49ers game live streaming online. Get the latest San Francisco 49ers schedule, TV channel, news update here.

  14. Philadelphia Eagles Game Live Streaming Football Online Eagles Gameday Online The Philadelphia Eagles are a professional NFL team based in Philadelphia. You can watch Philadelphia Eagles game live streaming online. Get the latest Philadelphia Eagles schedule, TV channel, news updates.

  15. thanks for your marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.