47 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-15-19

  1. First up, a civics lesson, since Dems an NTer see confused over it.

    The president, not diplomats, sets ‘official foreign policy’


    “There’s an important revelation from the first day of impeachment hearings that I haven’t heard discussed. It has to do with the witnesses’ strange notion of how foreign policy works.

    Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor both accused President Trump of interfering with U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine. They indicated they differed with Trump’s skepticism of Ukraine’s newest leadership, and they disagreed with Trump’s apparent decision to keep Ukraine at a measured distance while he assessed the situation.

    They further said that Trump gave approval for his attorney and adviser, Rudy Giuliani, to develop a communications channel on Ukraine diplomacy that was outside the “regular” diplomatic chain. Some in the media have dubbed that a “shadow campaign.”

    Kent and Taylor strongly disapproved.

    “Kent and Taylor … gave compelling testimony about why [President Trump’s] ‘shadow campaign’ was so at odds with America’s official foreign policy,” wrote Rolling Stone.

    The Huffington Post wrote, “State Department officials say Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy backchannel ‘undercut’ U.S. policy on Ukraine.”

    And Ambassador Taylor testified, “The official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Rudy Giuliani.”

    There must be some confusion.

    Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the president of the United States who determines foreign policy. How can President Trump be “at odds with foreign policy” when he’s the one who determines it?

    President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasn’t operating “business as usual,” since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best. Trump rankled, contradicted and “embarrassed” them by operating outside the “regular” chain.

    But they seem to miss the fact that their desires are subordinate to the president’s. “Official foreign policy,” as they called it, is not an independent unmovable-force object that exists outside the president’s authority; it is what the president determines it to be. The diplomats must execute the president’s wishes or resign from their posts if they feel they cannot bring themselves to do so.”


    They chose option C, become traitors.


  2. And make no mistake, this impeachment farce is really a battle over who sets foreign policy.


    “This Impeachment Inquiry Is Really About Who Sets U.S. Foreign Policy

    If Trump thinks it’s in the national interest to root out corruption in Ukraine and get to the bottom of 2016 election meddling, that’s his prerogative.”

    “Despite the hysterical headlines in the mainstream media, there was no bombshell on the first day of public testimony in the House impeachment inquiry. It was actually very boring and tedious.

    But for those who had the patience to sit through it on Wednesday, the testimony of veteran State Department officials William Taylor and George Kent did help clarify what this impeachment inquiry is all about: a disagreement between President Trump and a coterie of career State Department bureaucrats about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine.

    To put it more bluntly, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is about whether the president or unelected officials in the State Department should be able to determine U.S. foreign policy and define U.S. national interests abroad.

    What we heard Wednesday was a lot of opinions from Taylor and Kent about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine and what serves the national interest there. But if President Trump has a different view, whose opinion should matter? Clearly, the president’s opinion is the one that counts because the president, not State Department officials, sets U.S. foreign policy.

    But in Democrats’ telling, which has been dutifully parroted by the media, the impeachment inquiry is all about whether Trump made U.S. security aid to Ukraine dependent on an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens—a quid pro quo, an investigation of Trump’s political rival in exchange for hundreds of millions in U.S. aid. To maintain this narrative, Democrats have had to insist there could be no other motive for Trump to want to such an investigation.

    That’s why Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman kept referring to “political investigations” during Wednesday’s hearing. Trump wanted dirt on Joe Biden because he thought it would help him win reelection in 2020, end of story.

    But of course there are perfectly valid reasons to think that corruption investigations in Ukraine might serve other, broader interests that go beyond just Trump’s reelection. Kent himself testified that such investigations were in fact legitimate, given the history of endemic corruption in Ukraine and specifically a record of corruption at Burisma, whose owner had first been investigated during the Obama administration using U.S. funds.”


  3. This will be fun. Subpoena him, and put him under oath.


    “Graham Wants Schiff to Testify if Senate has Impeachment Trial

    Schiff once again denied knowing the whistleblower’s identity during yesterday’s hearing.”

    “Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to testify if the Senate has an impeachment trial:”

    ““As a matter of oversight, I’m not going to call a House member, but if you impeach the president of the United States, I want to find out if in fact Schiff and his staff met with the whistleblower,” Graham said.

    “So if there’s a trial in the Senate, one of the witnesses will be Adam Schiff because if he in fact did meet with the whistleblower and coach the guy up, I think that’s relevant to the impeachment inquiry itself,” Graham continued.”


  4. If Dems are really dead set on impeaching someone, how about they start with their corrupt members.

    First up, the clown from Florida.



  5. Then they can move on to The Squad. We already know about AOC’s FEC problems, and now it looks like Talib is using her campaign as a cash cow for her personal finances. A clear no-no.


    “Tlaib frantically asked campaign for personal money, messages show, as ethics probes announced”

    “The House Ethics Committee on Thursday released a trove of striking internal campaign communications sent in 2018 by Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, in which Tlaib urgently requested money from her congressional campaign to defray personal expenses — and, a government watchdog said, possibly violated federal law in the process.

    The document dump was related to the committee’s ongoing ethics probe into Tlaib, which the panel said on Thursday would be “expanded” based on a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). Additionally, the Ethics Committee acknowledged for the first time on Thursday an investigation into Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings concerning a “personal relationship with an individual employed in his congressional office.”

    Texts and emails released by the Ethics Committee show Tlaib frantically contacting members of her staff for financial help.

    In one April 2018 email offered as an exhibit by OCE, Tlaib wrote that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She continued: “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one time payment of $5k.”

    In another email, on April 4, 2018, Tlaib wrote: “I am just not going to make it through the campaign without a stipend.”

    “With the loss of a second income to lean back on,” she wrote. “I am requesting $2,000 per two weeks but not exceeding $12,000. The cost of living stipend is going towards much needed expenses due to campaigning that includes car maintenance, child care and other necessities. Please let me know if I can proceed.”

    In August of that year, Tlaib texted her future chief of staff Ryan Anderson at 6:38 a.m.: “Sorry for the early text but do you think the campaign can still pay me a stipend until the general. Trying to get out of debt.””


  6. Another leftist meme bites the dust. 🙂

    Too bad. 🙂


    “Report: Trump Leads the Pack in Large-Dollar Contributions From Suburban Women

    A new report suggests President Trump’s “suburban women problem” may not be much of a problem at all.”

    “On any given day, Democrats and the mainstream media are quick to tell people about how poorly President Trump is supposedly doing with women voters, especially those in the suburbs.

    Here’s just a quick sampling of some headlines from stories written about this alleged issue:

    AP – Suburban Women Recoil as Trump Dives Into Racial Politics
    Hill TV – Political analyst: White, suburban women are ‘fleeing the Trump party’
    Think Progress – Why Trump might be panicking about suburban women
    The Atlantic – Donald Trump’s Woman Problem Is Only Getting Worse
    Those are just a few of many stories you’ll find via Google search on this topic.

    But a new report suggests Trump’s “suburban women problem” may not be much of a problem at all.

    The Center for Responsive Politics published a report last week detailing the political contributions of suburban women who they say “could decide 2020.” Among the findings was that President Trump led all Democratic candidates for president in large-dollar contributions from suburban women:

    Suburban women who give large-dollar donors favor Trump, Harris and Biden. Since Trump’s inauguration, more than 7,000 women in suburban districts have given large-dollar contributions to his campaign. That totals $8 million, the most of all candidates, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of Federal Election Commission data on large itemized donations (more than $200) to all major presidential candidates and using CityLab’s Congressional Density Index.”


  7. Glenn Beck has put together a scathing indictment of Dems and their exploitation of Ukraine for their own gain. It’s long, complicated, but it puts everything into place. It also completely exposes what’s happening now as merely an attempt to cover their own misdeeds.

    If you have the time, watch the video.


    If you don’t, here’s a Twitter stream that gives the highlights.



  8. 6:45

    I wake up to interesting news. The Cult has awarded Florida to Texas. Have we been given Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana as well?


  9. And there’s that name again, interfering in US elections, with the approval of the Obama admin.

    Sometimes the boogeyman really is who you think he is.







  10. ————–



    And now you can start to understand why Dems are after Trump. He ceased and is seeking to expose this. They can’t have that, now can they?


  11. The Democrats still have one Koch brother and the Trumpkins still have Soros.

    Meanwhile, I can confirm that people from various income levels like Aldi. A nice story about free markets.


  12. Things have gotten really, really bad when Frank Bruni gets it right, but I love his Trumpers think “paranoia is exculpatory” line.


  13. Here is a brief bio of today’s witness. She has had an interesting life and career. I am sure she will do well. Schiff and the Democrat counsel will ask her intelligent, relevant questions. Nunes will make bizarre, irrelevant statements and ask irrelevant questions. Jordan will bay like a hyena. It should be interesting, but I will be at work and will have to watch the highlights later.



  14. And then there is the only Conservative left in the House of Representatives:


  15. Poor Ricky,

    When you have to prop up your witness with Wikipedia accolades before she even testifies, you know she’s a deep state shill with questionable character. It’s a given in this farce. 🙂


  16. Bwahahahaha!

    👉👉👉👉👉 and 🤣😂🤣😂🤣 time!

    I just finished looking over your Wiki link.

    Do you ever stop and think before you buy everything they spoon feed you?

    That page was entirely set up to refute exactly the kind of push back they knew she’d receive. It’s like it was planned in advance. Because it obviously was. Straight propaganda, and you lap it up.




  17. More bad news for Ricky.

    People. Don’t. Care.


    “Trump Derangement Syndrome Fatigue: Impeachment Viewership 32% Lower Than Comey Hearings

    Reruns never do as well.”


    “Fatigue from Trump Derangement Syndrome? The first day of impeachment hearings only brought in 13.1 million viewers.

    The number becomes bleaker considering how many channels carried the hearing.

    The numbers for these major hearings have declined since the Comey hearings:”


  18. Oh, and here’s a little tidbit that Wiki appears to have left out.

    You know, the truth. She knows nothing about anything, but she’s knows Orange Man Bad, and that’s good enough for Ricky and his ilk.

    “Why Yavanovitch is testifying at all is a bit of a mystery given she has said she knows nothing, didn’t hear the phone call, and wasn’t even the ambassador anymore by the time any of the supposed misconduct took place. Adam Schiff had originally said in his “rules” that any witness must be able to speak to the quid pro quo issue. Yovanovitch simply doesn’t meet that standard at all.”


    “I have a pretty good idea why she’s being trotted out though.

    Rumors are that she’s going to cry and “breakdown” about her “treatment” at the hands of the evil orange man, who supposedly allowed her to be pushed out by others around the President. Given she can provide zero evidence surrounding any of the actual questions involved in the Trump-Ukraine matter, the plan seems to be for her to add the spark Wednesday’s hearings were missing.

    This entire thing continues to be a joke. I’ll keep this post updated with clips and any notable moments. It’s possible we don’t get many, because again, she admits that she knows nothing. But here we are, so we’ll do our best.”


  19. Staged and rehearsed ahead of time.

    Sure…. this seems on the up and up…..🙄


    “Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they’ve held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.

    That was the case with the Dems’ “star” witnesses, US Chargé d’Affaires for Ukraine Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before appearing for Wednesday’s televised impeachment show. And for former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who debuts on the small screen Friday.

    It’s also the case for David Holmes, the diplomatic staffer said to have overheard a phone call in which Trump said something supposedly incriminating. He’s scheduled to testify publicly next week.

    Clever: By having witnesses go through closed-door hearings first, Dems can get a sense of what witnesses have to say privately and then tailor their questions for maximum impact during the public spectacle. The whole show can be stage-managed in advance.

    And if a witness “fails” the private audition, heck, maybe they don’t even have him or her appear publicly at all.”


  20. And Dear Leader has a bee in his bonnet.


  21. Like

  22. Well, well, well…..

    Looks like Beck is right on this part.

    And the latest witness has zero credibility. She’s already been exposed.

    John Solomon and his legion of links proves this. She is The Deep State Derp.


    “The real Ukraine controversy: an activist U.S. embassy and its adherence to the Geneva Convention”

    “he first time I ever heard the name of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was in early March of this year. It did not come from a Ukrainian or an ally of President Trump. It came from a career diplomat I was interviewing on background on a different story.

    The diplomat, as I recall, suggested that Yovanovitch had just caused a commotion in Ukraine a few weeks before that country’s presidential election by calling for the firing of one of the prosecutors aligned with the incumbent president.

    The diplomat related that a more senior State official, David Hale, was about to travel to Ukraine and was prepping to be confronted about Yovanovitch’s comments. I remember the diplomat joking something to the effect of, “we always say that the Geneva Convention is optional for our Kiev staff.”

    The Geneva Convention is the UN-backed pact enacted during the Cold War that governs the conduct of foreign diplomats in host countries and protects them against retribution. But it strictly mandates that foreign diplomats “have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State” that hosts them. You can read the convention’s rules here.

    I dutifully checked out my source’s story. And sure as day, Yovanovitch did give a speech on March 5, 2019 calling for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed. You can read that here.

    And the Ukraine media was abuzz that she had done so. And yes, Under Secretary of State Hale, got peppered with questions upon arriving in Kiev, specifically about whether Yovanovitch’s comments violated the international rule that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs and elections of their host country.

    Hale dutifully defended Yovanovitch with these careful words. “Well, Ambassador Yovanovitch represents the President of the United States here in Ukraine, and America stands behind her statements. And I don’t see any value in my own elaboration on what they may or may not have meant. They meant what she said.” You can read his comments here.

    Up to that point, I had focused months of reporting on Ukraine on the U.S. government’s relationship with a Ukraine nonprofit called the AntiCorruption Action Centre, which was jointly funded by liberal megadonor George Soros’ charity and the State Department. I even sent a list of questions to that nonprofit all the way back in October 2018. It never answered.

    Given that Soros spent millions trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in 2016, I thought it was a legitimate public policy question to ask whether a State Department that is supposed to be politically neutral should be in joint business with a partisan figure’s nonprofit entity.

    State officials confirmed that Soros’ foundation and the U.S. embassy jointly funded the AntiCorruption Action Centre, and that Soros’ vocal role in Ukraine as an anticorruption voice afforded him unique access to the State Department, including in 2016 to the top official on Ukraine policy, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. (That access was confirmed in documents later released under FOIA to Citizens United.)

    Soros’ representatives separately confirmed to me that the Anti-Corruption Action Centre was the leading tip of the spear for a strategy Team Soros devised in 2014 to fight corruption in Ukraine and that might open the door for his possible business investment of $1 billion. You can read the Ukraine strategy document here and Soros’ plan to invest $1 billion in Ukraine here.

    After being tipped to the current Yovanovitch furor in Ukraine, I was alerted to an earlier controversy involving the same U.S. ambassador. It turns out a senior member of Congress had in spring 2018 wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo alleging the ambassador had made anti-Trump comments and suggesting she be recalled. I confirmed the incident with House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and got a copy of his letter, which you can read here. Yovanovitch denies any such disloyalty to Trump.

    Nonetheless, I had a career diplomat and a Republican lawmaker raising similar concerns. So I turned back to the sources I had developed starting in 2018 on Ukraine and began to dig further.”


    And dig he did.


  23. I checked. I have a pulse, and Wallace has his opinion.

    Further exposed.


    “Shortly before Yovanovitch was set to take the stand, Fox News contributor John Solomon published an explosive March interview with Yuriy Lutsenko, a former prosecutor general in Ukraine. Lutsenko claimed that Yovanovitch had given him a “do not prosecute” list — and Solomon reported that Yovanovitch pressured Ukrainian prosecutors to back off a case involving the AntiCorruption Action Centre, funded by Soros, the liberal megadonor.

    The U.S. Embassy under Yovanovitch, Solomon reported, also influenced Ukraine to drop prosecution against top law enforcement official Artem Sytnyk, who was singled out by a Ukrainian court for leaking damaging information about Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman, to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Ukraine courts have ruled that the Manafort financial disclosures constituted illegal election meddling.

    Ukraine systematically worked behind the scenes to boost Clinton, Politico has reported. On his call with Zelensky in July, Trump specifically asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate reports that Ukraine had some involvement in 2016 election interference, before he mentioned taking a look at Joe Biden’s business dealings in the country.

    Though multiple reports, including one from The Associated Press, indicated Lutsenko had recanted his claims about Yovanovitch, Lutsenko said he had not — a revelation later confirmed by The New York Times.

    On Friday and beyond, House Republicans plan to sharpen their focus on allegations of Ukraine meddling in the 2016 presidential election, voicing frustration after top diplomats who testified Wednesday said they had no knowledge of the issue. A senior Republican official told Fox News on Thursday that the issue of Ukrainian election meddling would be a “theme” of questions asked by GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee moving forward.”


  24. Like

  25. All the FNC guys are failing to support Dear Leader.


  26. Blows up another Democratic lie. Trump invited Zelensky to the White House despite Democrats claiming that such an invitation was contingent on an investigation of Biden.


  27. More winning! 🙂

    While the House puts on a circus, R’s in the Senate are hard at work accomplishing Trump’s agenda. 🙂


    “WINNING: Trump Flips Another Circuit Court To Conservative Majority”

    “On Thursday, President Trump flipped another U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals into a conservative majority, as the Senate confirmed the nomination of White House attorney Steven Menashi to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now has seven judges appointed by Republican presidents and six by Democrats. Democrats flailed about in hysteria over the Menashi nomination, in which he was confirmed 51-41 in a party line vote only excepted by Susan Collins of Main, who voted against Menashi.”


  28. Ricky,

    I imagine that on appeal, the perjury trap they set for Stone will fare as well as the one they set for Flynn. Sure they got a conviction, but will it stand?

    And again, no one cares about some small bit player nailed on a process crime. Yawn.


  29. You and Baier need a lesson on what a president defending himself looks like. He can do so, and it’s not tampering or intimidation. It’s called a defense.

    Besides, as you should know being a lawyer and all, impeachment is a political act, it’s not a court of law and those laws don’t apply here.

    But you already knew that. You just bank on others being ignorant to this inconvenient fact.

    Try harder.


  30. Don’t believe the hype.



  31. Liked by 1 person

  32. ———


  33. And even further exposed.

    Dems and NTers do love them some traitors…..


    “Jim Jordan got his chance to question canned former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and he left blood on the floor.

    As I noted earlier today, the only reason I can see for Yovanovitch having any role at all in this hearing is that the Democrats are trying to set up a “#OrangeManBad picked on a girl.”

    Apparently, her feelings were hurt by the way she was treated and because Trump is involved, this is an impeachable offense. But, as many have pointed out, it is kind of hard to square the narrative of the tough, gritty ambassador with the whiny little….well, you know…that we’re seeing today.”

    “Jordan started his question by going to Yovanovitch’s opening statement. He asks her, “Ambassador, should ambassadors ever try to influence host country elections?” It takes 11 seconds for Yovanovitch to come up with an answer. He then leads her through all of her statements as to why bipartisan support of Ukraine was so vital. And then he returns back to 2016, when she was ambassador, and when the Ukraine government put on a full-court press to assist Hillary Clinton. Not only did the Ukraine president make statements in her favor, the Ukraine ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed in The Hill in which he directly criticized candidate Trump:

    Even if Trump’s comments are only speculative, and do not really reflect a future foreign policy, they call for appeasement of an aggressor and support the violation of a sovereign country’s territorial integrity and another’s breach of international law. In the eyes of the world, such comments seem alien to a country seen by partners as a strong defender of democracy and international order. The United States was among the 100 nations which supported the U.N. resolution “Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” not recognizing Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea.

    A candidate for the presidency in any country ought to realize the challenges he or she will face to ensure consistency in foreign policy and uphold his or her country’s international commitments. Ukraine — a strategic partner of the United States — entered the 1994 Budapest multilateral commitment, giving away the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in return for security assurances to its territorial integrity from three nuclear powers: the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia.

    He documents the instances of meddling in detail, then Jordan then asks her if she ever told the Ukraine government to butt out of the 2016 election. She says she didn’t. Jordan is never able to get her to explain why she refused to tell the Ukrainian government to back off. But we know that answer. She wanted Clinton to win, she thought Clinton was going to win, and she didn’t see anything wrong with this particular foreign country meddling in our elections because it favored her desired outcome.

    Finally, Jordan runs out of time as Yovanovitch refuses to even acknowledge questions and Schiff comes to her rescue.”


  34. So in other words, 7:31 a.m. was an entirely accurate prediction, though I did not anticipate Trump’s stupid Tweet for which he has been condemned by multiple Republican Congressmen.


  35. Disgraceful.


    “Dissecting Marie Yovanovitch’s Disgraceful Opening Statement”

    “I’m getting seriously tired of watching the Democrats’ star chamber, as well as that lying Democrat majority counsel Daniel Goldman make false assumptions and lead witnesses. But even before that SOB got started with his questioning, we had to suffer through perhaps the most disgraceful and rambling statement ever made by a former US ambassador. Innuendo, opinion and feelings. Barf! Let’s take a look at that in some detail. In the analysis that follows, I will quote one of her statements preceded by a “Y”. My response will be preceded by a “C”. Here we go.

    Y: Like my colleagues, I entered the Foreign Service understanding that my job was to implement the foreign policy interests of this nation, as defined by the President and Congress, and to do so regardless of which person or party was in power.

    C: Wednesday’s witnesses were destroyed because they clearly disagreed with the President’s policies and sought to undermine them. This statement was likely inserted by Goldman as an attempt to counter that testimony. Won’t work, given Yovanovitch’s anti-Trump actions.

    Y: It was my great honor to be appointed to serve as an ambassador three times— twice by President George W. Bush and once by President Barack Obama.

    C: Yes, yes, attempt to hide behind supposed bipartisan support. The reality is quite different: anti-Trump Uniparty support. We have learned that W is a globalist, too.

    Y: [lots of statements about her service, including being in harm’s way, as well as comments about Ukraine’s “importance” in Europe]

    C: All meaningless attempts to establish her credibility in the context of the inquiry. It’s all irrelevant, as she has no direct evidence about POTUS, having never even met him.

    Y: The U.S. has provided significant security assistance since the onset of the war against Russia in 2014.

    C: A completely disingenuous statement! Obama refused to give Ukraine lethal aid to help them in fight off Russian incursions into Ukraine. She left that part out.”


    Plenty more dismantling of her speech. And that’s what it was, a speech.


  36. She’s a fraud, and you know she is, and knew she’d be exposed as one, as did the NYT and the other leftists you side with daily. Not shocking at all.

    Yeah, you’re a real Kreskin there Ricky….. 🙄


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.