20 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-26-18

  1. Showing their true colors.


    “As the Democratic Party lurches leftward and adopts a distinctly socialist stance, its political center has also shifted left. Amazingly, this new Democratic Party considers among its centrists those figures we tend to think of as radical leftists: Obama, Hillary, and to a lesser extent Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

    Figures once considered fringe even among the left are now hailed as the voice of the party; these figures include self-proclaimed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and radical progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Sanders and more recently Warren have been strong proponents of single-payer and “free” college. Thanks in large part to Bernie, much of the left, the Democrat base, thinks of itself as “Democratic Socialist.”

    This week the California Democratic Party fails to endorse in the California Senate race.

    Wow indeed. Feinstein, the state’s senior senator, is being challenged by Democrat state senator Kevin de León who is running to her left and who racked up 54% of the state convention votes.”

    “The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) just this week posted an attack on a Democrat running in Texas’ 7th District, citing her “Washington insider” status as a problem.

    Time reports:

    “Voters in Houston have organized for over a year to hold Representative Culberson accountable and win this Clinton district,” said DCCC communications director Meredith Kelly in a statement. “Unfortunately, Laura Moser’s outright disgust for life in Texas disqualifies her as a general election candidate, and would rob voters of their opportunity to flip Texas’ 7th in November.”

    . . . . Moser says the announcement caught her completely off guard.

    “I did not expect this to come from my own party,” she said in an interview Friday. “I’ve been a loyal, lifelong, establishment Democrat. I’ve worked hard for every Democratic candidate since I’ve been in 5th grade.”

    Establishment Democrats are learning quickly. For example, John Podesta’s Center for American (CAP) released a “Medicare Extra for All” plan that upends Hillary’s 2016 insistence that ObamaCare just needed a tweak here and a fix there, and it would perfectly address every health care need of every American.”


  2. All the news that I’m not paying for, because your product sucks and you should fail if your business model collapses as a result..

    Show of hands…..

    Who is paying for the WaPo and NYTimes? I wonder because some post links to these two sources all the time. But since I won’t pay (and I’m sure others feel the same) it’s a wasted effort because I can’t read it, and neither can the others. Any news that’s important enough will eventually be available for free elsewhere. I’ll wait, or watch it on one of the 15 news channels I already have with my cable subscription.


    “For those looking for free news online, the search is becoming harder.

    Tougher restrictions on online content have boosted digital paid subscriptions at many news organizations, amid a growing trend keeping content behind a “paywall.”

    Free news has by no means disappeared, but recent moves by media groups and Facebook and Google supporting paid subscriptions is forcing free-riders to scramble.

    For some analysts, the trend reflects a normalization of a situation that has existed since the early internet days that enabled consumers to get accustomed to the notion of free online content.

    “I think there is a definite trend for people to start paying for at least one news source,” said Rebecca Lieb, an analyst who follows digital media for Kaleido Insights.

    Lieb said consumers have become more amenable to paying for digital services and that investigative reporting on politics in Washington and elsewhere has made consumers aware of the value of journalism.

    A study last year by the Media Insight Project found 53 percent of Americans have paid for at least one news subscription. A separate report by Oxford University’s Reuters Institute found two-thirds of European newspapers used a pay model.”


  3. Examples need to be made. It’s the only way they’ll learn. Let’s start with her.


    “Jeff Sessions, call your office, please.

    There was a time when this would have seemed remarkable, but since we’re talking about California in 2018 it’s probably par for the course. The Democratic Mayor of Oakland, California, Libby Schaaf, sent out a public warning this weekend which was supposedly designed to “protect the residents” of her city. Only this particular public service announcement wasn’t intended for all of Oakland’s residents. It was only applicable to the illegal aliens residing there.

    She was warning them of “credible information” she had received, indicating that the next big ICE sweep would be targeting illegals in her city. She was not seeking to induce any sort of “panic” there, mind you. She just wanted to keep people safe. (Fox News)

    The mayor of a sanctuary city in California issued a warning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could be conducting a raid in the area as soon as Sunday — ratcheting up tension with the feds while giving her constituents an early heads-up.

    Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, shared the warning — which she said she “learned from multiple credible sources” — in a press release on Saturday, “not to panic our residents but to protect them,” Fox 2 reported.

    The mayor said she didn’t know further details of the ICE operation, but claimed she felt it was her “duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”

    Here’s the thing. When you’re an elected official and you warn people about a flu epidemic, a wildfire approaching the city or a water main break, you’re responsibly protecting your residents. When you warn a criminal that law enforcement is coming for them you’re engaged in something known as “harboring.” (Specifically, to clandestinely shelter, succor, and protect improperly admitted Aliens.)

    Is this some sort of general guideline or suggestion? No. It’s actually embedded in federal law and has been for as long as anyone reading this has been alive. Here’s how it’s structured, courtesy of the Cornell Law School.

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii)

    Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a) (1) (B) (ii)

    A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”


  4. Good for newspapers charging for their content. Too bad all of us didn’t get that message at the dawn of the Internet. It shouldn’t be given away. Yeah, we’re all used to free information — but journalists should be paid to do what they do. I pay for an online subscription to the WSJ — would consider others, including the NY Times & WaPo and LA Times, but am needing to budget. So far, I can sort of get buy with the number of free articles they still offer per month.

    Feinstein — pretty surprising. For a Democrat, she wasn’t a bad US Senator. But her more centrist approach internationally along with her age worked against her for another 6-year term.

    Both parties may be headed for the fringes, leaving the middle ripe for new, more moderate parties perhaps? Time will tell.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. And those larger papers are doing well with the subscriptions, I’ve heard. Newspapers in the past could count on adversing revenues but those are gone and haven’t been replaced by digital ad rates as was anticipated. So online subscriptions make sense.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. A friend pointed out 20 years ago he would be willing to pay a penny or two to the National Archives every time he checked their records to get the information he wanted. He felt they should charge something.

    I don’t know what the status is now, but as a researcher, I’ve been living in a golden age of being able to obtain material free on the Internet.

    Though I can’t read as many online articles as I would these days. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I’m sure they are, for now, until the next new technology renders that model obsolete as well.

    But I’m not paying for a biased product like what the NYT and WaPo usually put out. I am contemplating a WSJ subscription, because I agree, they deserved to be paid in some fashion for their work. I just refuse to pay for what I consider refuse.


  8. Still getting worse…..


    “A woman who called the FBI with a tip about Nikolas Cruz, the confessed gunman in last week’s shooting at a Florida high school, warned the bureau he had multiple rifles and ammunition and feared Cruz would wind up “getting into a school and just shooting the place up.”

    The woman spoke with the FBI for roughly 13 minutes, according to a transcript of the call obtained and published by the New York Times. During that time, she told the FBI about several photos on Cruz’s Instagram accounts, as well as changes in his behavior following the death of his mother.

    “If you go onto his Instagram pages, you’ll see all the guns,” the woman said. “He’s so into ISIS, and I’m afraid this is, something’s gonna happen because he doesn’t have the mental capacity. He can’t. He’s so outraged if someone talks to him about certain things.”

    The tip to the FBI came on Jan. 5, more than one month before Cruz, 19, said he opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Seventeen people were killed and at least a dozen were injured. Cruz admitted to police he was the shooter.

    The FBI acknowledged last week it received a tip about Cruz, but said proper protocols “were not followed for the information received.” The bureau said the information should have been “assessed as a potential threat to life” and forwarded to the FBI field office in Miami, which did not happen.

    During the call to the FBI, the tipster, whose name was redacted, said Cruz had the “mental capacity of a 12-to14-year-old” and said she alerted local police about her concern that Cruz wanted to kill himself. Later, she said, his rhetoric shifted and Cruz’s viewpoint changed to he “wants to kill people.”

    “I just want someone to know about this so they can look into it,” she told the FBI. “If they think it’s something worth going into, fine. If not, I just know I have a clear conscience if he takes off and just starts shooting places up.”



    “According to a BuzzFeed investigation, there are 22 more 911 calls to the home of Parkland, Fla. killer Nikolas Cruz that were never disclosed to the public, which would bring the total to at least 45:

    From BuzzFeed:

    Broward County sheriff’s officials said in a statement late Saturday that they responded only to 23 calls involving suspected Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz or his family over the years, but records obtained by BuzzFeed News show at least 45 responses since 2008.

    The number of calls made over the years involving Cruz or his family, according to the call records, are nearly twice the number publicly disclosed by the department.

    On Saturday night, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office released a statement pushing back on reports that they had been called more than the 23 incidents released by the department.

    “Since 2008, BSO responded to 23 incidents where previous contact was made with the killer or his family,” the sheriff’s office said in its statement. “STOP REPORTING 39; IT’S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.”

    The Broward County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to BuzzFeed News’ questions about the additional calls, or how it determined to include the 23 calls that were disclosed to the public, but not the others.”


  9. Schiff delivers……… for Nunes and Trump.


    “The Schiff Memo Harms Democrats More Than It Helps Them

    “Maybe Adam Schiff has more of a sense of humor than I’d have given him credit for. The House Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat begins his long-awaited memo — the minority response to the Nunes memo that was penned by staffers of the committee’s Republican majority — by slamming Chairman Devin Nunes’s unconscionable “risk of public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.” The Schiff memo, which has been delayed for weeks because the FBI objected to its gratuitous effort to publicize highly classified intelligence, including methods and sources, then proceeds to tell its tale through what appear to be scores of blacked-out redactions of information Schiff pushed to expose.

    Heavy Reliance on Steele Dossier Confirmed
    The FBI and the Justice Department heavily relied on the Steele dossier’s uncorroborated allegations. You know this is true because, notwithstanding the claim that “only narrow use” was made “of information from Steele’s sources,” the Democrats end up acknowledging that “only narrow use” actually means significant use — as in, the dossier was the sine qua non of the warrant application. The memo concedes that the FISA-warrant application relied on allegations by Steele’s anonymous Russian hearsay sources that:

    Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Roseneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and “an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.” Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton (“kompromat”) and noted the possibility of its being released to Candidate #1’s [i.e., Donald Trump’s] campaign. . . . This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos.

    This passage puts the lie to two of the main Democratic talking points:”

    “The first thing to notice here is the epistemological contortions by which the DOJ rationalized concealing that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for Steele’s reporting. They ooze consciousness of guilt. If you have to go through these kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid disclosing something, it’s because you know that being “transparent” demands disclosing it.

    Next, Schiff — again, hilariously enough to make you wonder if it’s done tongue-in-cheek — accuses Nunes of hypocrisy for condemning the omission of Mrs. Clinton’s name after having rebuked the Obama administration’s “unmasking” of American names. Of course, the two things have nothing to do with each other.

    “Unmasking” refers to the revelation of American identities in intelligence reports. These are Americans who, though not targeted as foreign agents, are incidentally intercepted in surveillance. In marked contrast, we are talking here about a FISA warrant application, not an intelligence report. In a warrant application, it is the DOJ’s honorable practice, and the judiciary’s expectation, that the court must be informed about the material biases of the sources of the factual allegations that the DOJ claims amount to probable cause.

    As the Democrats’ own excerpt from the FISA application illustrates, unmasking has nothing to do with it, because there is no need to use names at all: Note that Simpson is referred to as “an identified U.S. person”; Perkins-Coie is referred to as “a U.S.-based law firm.” The dispute here is not about the failure to use the words “Hillary Clinton.” They could have referred to “Candidate #2.” To state that “Candidate #2” had commissioned Steele’s research would have been just as easy and every bit as appropriate as the DOJ’s reference to a “Candidate #1,” who might have “ties to Russia.” Had DOJ done the former, it would not have “unmasked” Hillary Clinton any more than Donald Trump was unmasked by DOJ’s description of him as “Candidate #1”; but it would have been being “transparent” with the FISA court. By omitting any reference to Clinton, the DOJ was being the opposite of transparent.”


  10. Our ongoing homeless problems in California.

    A mini-skid row in our port town now extends about 2 square blocks and seems to be growing.


    And the problem since the cleanup of the camp in Orange County to the south of us is that some of those folks are now finding their way into other communities, including ours.


    The specter of homeless encampments steadily expanding across the downtown streets of San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco – bringing with them a public health crisis – has one southern California community taking tough action to dismantle a two-mile-long camp just a short drive from Disneyland. …


  11. More on the Schiff memo…


    “The 10-page Schiff memo defends the FBI against the charge that it abused its surveillance powers during the 2016 election. The redactions strongly suggest that the Democrats don’t care as much about protecting intelligence sources and methods as they do about keeping up the appearance that there must be a pony in here somewhere.

    The Democrats’ mainstream media adjunct has of course seized on the release of the memo to regurgitate the obligatory talking points. Read properly, however, the Schiff memo undermines the Democrats’ case. Andrew McCarthy authoritatively explicates the memo in his invaluable NR column “The Schiff memo harms Democrats more than it helps them,” just posted yesterday evening.

    Unlike the Democrats’ faithful media servants, McCarthy applies relevant professional expertise to understanding the memo; he knows what he is talking about. Unlike the Democrats and their media servants, he does not live to promote a party line. He is a natural teacher.

    The column is a marvel of lucidity that illuminates the memo’s dark, dark corners. Its only defect is its pedestrian headline. It would more accurately have been headed “The Schiff memo is a work of appalling dishonesty.””


  12. Democrats and liberals are fighting to keep the unworkable status quo.


    “With the Supreme Court hearing arguments in Janus v AFSCME this week, unions, liberals and much of the media (though I repeat myself) are really scrambling to pull out a win. Earlier today, Ed wrote about the efforts by some Democrats to shame the Supremes into not overturning a decades-old ruling based on stare decisis, but that’s not the only line of attack being mustered. Others, such as Daniel DiSalvo and Jeffrey Kucik at the Washington Post, are raising the specter of a looming fiscal crisis facing the entire nation if public sector unions aren’t allowed to continue deducting dues from non-members and spending that money to promote liberal policies.

    The odd aspect of their analysis is that the authors are actually highlighting a very real problem currently bogging down state and local governments around the nation. (And one which will eventually begin to cripple the federal government as well absent any changes in policy.) They’re describing the huge, back-loaded costs of retirement plans for union workers which contain costs far above and beyond their basic pension payments, particularly their generous healthcare plans.

    Such a ruling would weaken unions by reducing their revenue and limiting their bargaining power. But here is what has been going on under the radar. Janus could affect an important state government obligation: paying post-employment benefits other than pensions — primarily health-care coverage — to retired public workers.

    As of 2016, these unfunded state government liabilities totaled $1.1 trillion nationwide. Stronger unions tend to push back when states try to reduce such benefits to balance their books. Weaker unions could enable states to relieve some fiscal stress.

    The authors are correct in citing the cost of these retirement packages as a problem. It’s the primary driver which has nearly sunk New Jersey’s state government and embroiled Chris Christie throughout his entire tenure as governor. So one way to look at this (if you happen to be a liberal) is to say, as the authors do, that strong unions are able to push back against cuts to benefits.

    Well, that’s a dandy solution if you happen to be one of the people receiving those benefits or planning your retirement around them. But it doesn’t do anything for the tens of millions of people in the private sector who have little chance of landing a job that offers anywhere near that level of retirement stability. It also does nothing to magically make more money appear in state and municipal budgets to cover these skyrocketing expenses. The authors attempt to claim that such expensive pension plans are justified because “many public-sector jobs offer lower salaries than their private-sector counterparts. As a result, public employees tend to have far more stable and secure retirements than similarly situated private-sector workers.”

    No citation is offered for this incredible claim. If you look long and hard, you can probably find a handful of cases where it’s true, but for the most part and in nearly all cases, public sector workers earn more than their private-sector counterparts. And I did offer a linked citation for that. Perhaps even more embarrassingly, it’s from… The Washington Post.”

    Dems want their cut to keep on coming as well.


    “Should unions have the right to collect dues from non-members? At least two Senate Democrats want the Supreme Court to reject a new effort to overturn the 1977 Abood ruling that left their party’s revenue stream intact. Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Blumenthal filed an amicus brief in Janus v AFSCME that warns the justices that their standing as a non-political entity will get further eroded unless they stick to stare decisis:

    “If stare decisis means anything, it must mean that a precedent should not be overturned simply because a differently composed court emerges,” the senators wrote. “Decision-making begins to look like prize-taking when precedents are reversed as Court majorities shift.” …

    The background of the case means that the court needs to be vigilant of its apolitical role, Whitehouse and Blumenthal wrote.

    “Otherwise, the ‘intelligent man’ will reach only one conclusion: that the Court is being asked to reach a political decision because the interests involved in that campaign think — and have telegraphed and telegraphed and telegraphed — that, based on this Court’s changed membership, a 5-4 victory awaits them,” the senators’ brief states.

    The top court will hear oral arguments in Janus today, and it’s a panel that seems primed for a 5-4 decision in either direction:”


  13. But…. but…… I’ve been assured that things like this couldn’t possibly happen under the watchful eye of that bastion of all that’s right and good within America, James Comey. This must be a mistake.


    “The Department of Justice inspector general sanctioned at least 14 FBI employees since 2014
    The majority of sexual impropriety occurred under former FBI Director James Comey
    Sexual misconduct at the FBI went further than Lisa Page and Peter Strzok”

    The Department of Justice’s inspector general sanctioned at least 14 FBI agents and officials for a range of improper sexual acts since 2014, and most of the misconduct occurred during former FBI Director James Comey’s term, The Daily Caller News Foundation has determined.

    The public got a glimpse into the bureau’s sexual mischief when it was disclosed high-profile FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were cheating on their spouses. Special counsel Robert Mueller dumped Page from his investigation on Russian collusion and later removed Strzok after he learned of their relationship.

    But it turns out sexual misconduct within the bureau went much further than cheating spouses.

    According to the Justice Department inspector general’s enforcement summaries, which TheDCNF reviewed, FBI agents and officials engaged in a variety of improper sexual relationships and harassment throughout the bureau. Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz published at least 14 instances of improper sexual conduct. The latest incident was reported only last week.”


  14. Intentionally missing what’s been right in front of them.


    “Mueller scours Team Trump for Russian collusion as Dems marinate in it”

    “Special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigators resemble axe-wielding firefighters frantically stomping through a house and not finding so much as a lit birthday candle. Meanwhile, the home next door burns to the basement.

    Team Mueller’s never-ending hunt for reds in October 2016 has found zero evidence of Russian collusion among Team Trump. In contrast, Russian collusion among Democrats has been as hard to miss as a California wildfire. And yet they still miss it.

    Team Mueller did find Russian interference in the 2016 election — and how! The February 16 announcement of federal criminal indictments against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies was a Cold War flashback. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told journalists that Russians close to the Kremlin infiltrated the last presidential campaign “to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy.”

    But Rosenstein threw a bucket of wet sand onto the Left’s simmering narrative that DJT = KGB. The Russian meddling began in 2014, well before Donald J. Trump’s campaign commenced. The Russians promoted Vermont senator Bernie Sanders’s Democratic-primary bid and Green-party nominee Jill Stein’s general-election effort. After Trump won, the Russians organized pro-Trump and anti-Trump demonstrations, once in New York City on the same day. They also staged an anti-Trump rally in Charlotte.

    Furthermore, Rosenstein said, “There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity.” Thus far, anyone on Team Trump who might have worked with Russians did so after being hoodwinked, not due to treason — as Democrats have shouted for more than a year.

    Also, none of this should comfort Hillary Clinton. Rosenstein said: “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.” So, rather than blame Russia for her epic fail, Hillary finally should concede that she lost a mismanaged campaign that barely visited Michigan and avoided Wisconsin as if it had been quarantined.

    Throughout these events, the president of the United States was not Donald Trump. It was Barack Obama. He appears to have done little to nothing about this Russian penetration of America’s contest for the White House, other than to tell Putin to “cut it out” at a September 2016 meeting in China.

    Meanwhile, as if to bury the illusory Russia–Trump nexus even further, a February 7 U.S.-led coalition airstrike on pro-Assad “mercenaries” in eastern Syria killed “several dozen” Russians, Moscow admitted. Sending Russians home in boxes is hardly what one would expect from Vladimir Putin’s “puppet” in Washington, no matter how much Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow huff and puff to the contrary.

    In short, there is not enough proof of Russian collusion by Trump to fuel a stovetop pilot light.

    In contrast, the evidence of Democratic collusion with Russia blazes on, even as Team Mueller ignores it.”


  15. This is how Twitter works. Remember last Thursday when I told you Mona Charen had 8500 followers and was swapping old Tom Lehrer song lyrics with a few of us. She is now up to 25,900 followers (and still climbing) with her sights trained squarely on the big guy.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. I don’t pay for my news either but i do think one should be cautious in accepting the veracity of claims made by many free sites. For instance, one of AJs links considers Clinton a leftist. In fact in some economic policies she had views to the right of Trump (ie free trade).

    Solar’s links this weekend on the change in protocol is interesting. I can understand the rational for rushing in yet I’m still not sure if its a wise idea. Ultimately the fact that most shooters are better armed than the police is the pertinent fact. Gun control is the issue not police actions is the issue. I’ve taught boys who made me nervous and I’m thankful they had free access to mental health care and not to guns.

    I do wonder what the protocol was in Broward county and if it was followed. School boards typically have established protocols and procedures with the local police. I wonder what it was and if it was followed.

    I’m still amused by the sight of the party of law and order throwing the police and the FBI under the bus in order to protect themselves and the NRA. Then again I shouldnt be surprised. After all the party of family values voted for Trump.


  17. “I’m still amused by the sight of the party of law and order throwing the police and the FBI under the bus in order to protect themselves and the NRA.”

    Explain this; it’s not coherent.


  18. Re paywalls: I would be open to some model that let users pay a certain amount, say $20, for a “news subscription” that allowed you to access any of multiple papers either for a set period of time or a set number of uses. I came across a paywall the other day that offered to let me read for $1.00. But when I looked at the fine print, it was allowing $1 for the first week, and then would charge $4 a week unless I cancelled, or something like that. No. I won’t give access to my credit card for some indefinite future, nor will I pay $4 a week for some paper in a town where I don’t live. But if there were a way to pre-pay and then have 10 cents or 20 cents taken out of the account for each article accessed, I could do that.

    The thing that is maddening to me is when content gets linked somewhere, and I try to follow the link and hit a paywall. Or when I am trying to fact-check something I’m editing and I hit a paywall. (I told my publisher I had done so on one occasion, since I thought it probably should be fact-checked but I wasn’t wiling to pay several dollars for a subscription to fact-check something for a client; if they cared enough to pay, or already had a subscription, it would be easy enough for them to do it.)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.