31 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-5-22

  1. Narrative, busted.

    “New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support State-Level Abortion Restrictions”


    “Democrats and their journalist allies are in the process of convincing themselves that the Supreme Court’s leaked decision supplanting Roe v. Wade will be an electoral game-changer. That may turn out to be true. It may not. Or, perhaps more likely, it will be a mixed bag that helps Democrats in some races, helps Republicans in others, and ends up being a marginal factor in most contests. One of the underlying assumptions of the “backlash” analysis is that the issue clearly favors Democrats overall, but fresh polling once again underscores that abortion-related public opinion is actually more complicated than that. New numbers from Fox News underscore the complexity and quasi-incoherence of public opinion on the subject. The poll shows that a substantial majority opposes overturning Roe – but majorities also support state-level restrictions recently implemented in places like Texas, Florida and Mississippi. This doesn’t quite fit the Narrative, even though it’s in line with years of abortion polling: ”

    “Re-read those results, then consider the tone and content of news coverage and social media posts. There’s a disconnect, and it’s gaping. In case you were curious, women favor the Mississippi and Florida-style 15-week restrictions by double digits. And then there’s this: ”

    “How to square the strong support for maintaining Roe with these other findings? I believe it comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding, driven by a decades-long misinformation campaign by abortion supporters and the news media to convince people that “overturning Roe” is synonymous with “abortion is banned.” That is not true, as we explained yesterday. Roe falling means that states will again pass their own abortion laws, which will range from very liberal to very restrictive, with quite a few falling in between. The Mississippi law, which is featured in the Dobbs case before the Court, is very mainstream, by both American and global standards: “

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Another myth easily debunked….







    There were hundreds more responses.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I took the time to check out 2 mentioned, Heartbeat International, which has 3000 affiliates, over 81,000 volunteers around the world, and has helped over 1.5 million women…


    And CareNet, one of our local ones, which has 1,100 affiliates in North America, has helped over 2.8 million clients, and thousands of volunteers, and even helps with resources to help men be better fathers….


    These are just 2 examples. So next time someone says that pro-lifers don’t care about babies after they’re born, you will know better, though I know most of you already did know that.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. And in other news….

    So I guess Democrats and their media friends got together for a super spreader event over the weekend.

    All vaxxed to the max, but it did them little good.




    Liked by 1 person

  5. Maybe they’re getting the message….






  6. Good news. 🙂


    “Repairman Who Exposed Hunter Biden’s Laptop Files Defamation Suit Against CNN, Politico, Daily Beast, and Adam Schiff

    Isacc wants “at least $1 million in compensatory damages [and] punitive damages which will be the much bigger number and will be determined at trial.””


    “Computer repairman John Paul Mac Isaac caused a firestorm when he exposed Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election. The left and MSM went after him, dragged his name through the mud, and did everything they could to discredit him.

    Twitter and Facebook censored the story from The New York Post. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and 51 others accused Isaac of peddling Russian disinformation.

    Schiff said on CNN after the story hit: “Well, we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about the vice president and his son.”

    Isaac lost his business and endured 18 months of harassment. People threw food at his Delaware shop. He had to leave and moved to Colorado.

    Joe Biden is in office so now everyone is like, “Oh, yeah. Everything is authentic concerning Hunter’s laptop.”

    Isaac is not letting them off easy. He filed a defamation suit against CNN, The Daily Beast, Politico, and Schiff.

    From The New York Post:

    “After fighting to reveal the truth, all I want now is for the rest of the country to know that there was a collective and orchestrated effort by social and mainstream media to block a real story with real consequences for the nation,” the 45-year-old Mac Isaac told The Post.

    “This was collusion led by 51 former pillars in the intelligence community and backed by words and actions of a politically motivated DOJ and FBI,” he continued. “I want this lawsuit to reveal that collusion and more importantly, who gave the marching orders.”

    “Twitter initially labeled my action hacking, so for the first day after my information was leaked, I was bombarded with hate mail and death threats revolving around the idea that I was a hacker, a thief and a criminal,” Mac Isaac said.
    Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, “has some explaining” to do, Mac Isaac insisted.

    “Without any intel, the head of the intel committee decided to share with CNN and its viewers a complete and utter lie,” Mac Isaac said. “A lie issued in the protection of a preferred presidential candidate.”

    Isaac accused CNN, Politico, and The Daily Beast of hawking disinformation about the laptop:

    “CNN’s broadcast of the false statement accuses the Plaintiff of committing an
    infamous crime, i.e., treason by working with the Russians to commit a crime against the United States of America by attempting to undermine American democracy and the 2020 Presidential election,” the suit states.”

    Liked by 2 people

  7. The Russia, Russia, Russia hoax continues to implode. 🙂


    “Durham Drills Down On DNC, Clinton, In Russia Collusion Hoax Probe”


    “Special Counsel John Durham is continuing to press his criminal investigation into the origins of the “Trump-Russia collusion” hoax with another new court filing on Monday.

    According to the Washington Examiner, Durham’s efforts to get a judge to look at documents shielded by attorney-client privilege claims from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee are increasing:

    The prosecutor submitted a filing in federal court Monday pointing to a Federal Election Commission ruling that fined those Democrats for violating rules with the funding of research that became a central part of the effort to accuse Clinton’s rival, Donald Trump, of collusion with Russia.

    The submission is part of the case against Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who was indicted in September for allegedly concealing his clients — Clinton’s campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” Rodney Joffe — from FBI general counsel James Baker in September 2016 when he presented internet data that suggested a now-discredited back channel link between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa-Bank. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.

    Durham’s motion attached recently public FEC filings, including the FEC’s “conciliation agreement” with the DNC and Hillary for America. The FEC found “probable cause to believe” the Clinton campaign and the DNC improperly reported their payments to Perkins Coie for Fusion GPS’s opposition research as “legal and compliance consulting,” the special counsel said.

    He went on to note that evidence presented at Sussmann’s trial, which is set to begin this month, will indicate that in late July 2016, the Clinton attorney along with Joffe and “agents of the Clinton campaign” were “assembling and disseminating the Russian Bank-1 allegations and other derogatory information about Trump and his associates to the media and the U.S. government.” Durham’s filing also said he will “establish that these efforts amounted to a joint venture.”


    This is what collusion looks like.

    The Obama appointed judge continues to try and limit the damage, but he can’t hide the facts for much longer. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “A Big Night for Vance and Trump”


    “In his 2016 bestselling autobiography “Hillbilly Elegy,” J.D. Vance thanks his grandparents – his “Mamaw and Papaw” – for their love and support that gave him the self-confidence and the right opportunities to get a “fair shot at the American Dream.”

    Tuesday night, as Vance stepped closer to his goal of joining the most exclusive club in the country – the U.S. Senate – he thanked his grandparents again, along with President Trump.

    “I absolutely gotta thank the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, for providing, ladies and gentlemen, an example of what could be in this country,” Vance, 37, said in his primary victory speech. “Remember in 2019 when workers were doing well in this country, not struggling terribly. Thanks [to] the president for everything, for endorsing me.”

    Vance then pulled a trademark Trump maneuver, slamming the “fake news media” for wanting to write a story that “this campaign would be the death of Donald Trump’s America First agenda … Ladies and gentlemen, it ain’t the death of the America First agenda.”

    It’s been a heady, evolutionary six years for Vance, the Yale law school graduate and venture capitalist who burst on the scene with his book about growing up “dirt poor’ in Appalachia. Coastal elites immediately embraced his life story as a way to understand Trump’s appeal among the white working class. During the 2016 campaign, though, Vance declared himself a Never Trumper, dubbing the casino-developer-turned-reality-TV-star-turned-politician “cultural heroin” for the masses, and argued he was leading working-class voters into a dark place.

    However, during the Trump presidency, Vance shifted sharply to become an avid Trump supporter, citing the tumultuous Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a significant turning point. (His wife, Usha Chilukuri, had clerked for Kavanaugh when he was an appeals court judge.) Meanwhile, Ohio transformed from a Republican-leaning swing state to a solidly red GOP bastion, supporting Trump by eight percentage points in both 2016 and 2020.

    Vance’s win brings to a close a crowded and contentious Republican contest to fill the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Rob Portman, a respected moderate. It also marks a major victory night for Trump, who has taken the unusual step for a former president of picking sides in primaries – a way to solidify his role as party kingmaker while he weighs another White House run in 2024.

    Trump undoubtedly tilted the race in Vance’s favor. Before his endorsement, Vance was trailing former Ohio state treasurer Josh Mandel, another Trump acolyte, 28%-23%, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average of polls. Meanwhile, State Sen. Matt Dolan faded in the final stretch.

    With more than 95% of the vote reporting late Tuesday night, Vance won 32.2% compared to Mandel’s 23.9% and Dolan’s 23.3%.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Not gonna win over voters with this nonsense again.




    Biden’s brown shirts made an appearance….


  10. I guess some horse drugs are more equal than others….

    Or they’re just hypocrites….

    “After Insane Ivermectin Freakout, Left Pushes Actual Horse Meds For DIY Chemical Abortions”


    “After leftists and the corporate media freaked out about people using ivermectin, which they reduced to a “horse dewormer,” as a potential Covid-19 treatment, those same people are advising women to get horse drugs from veterinarians to facilitate do-it-yourself chemical abortions as the United States Supreme Court moves to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    “With the Supreme Court poised to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, an anarchist collective that makes DIY medicine has released detailed instructions for making abortion pills,” VICE tweeted.”

    “These “abortion pills,” the article reveals are “also used to treat ulcers in horses.” Vice acknowledged this is “reminiscent of ivermectin” but still smeared the people who used it to treat Covid as “conspiracy theorists.”

    Mere months after it claimed Joe Rogan “spread misinformation” about ivermectin, “the horse-deworming drug he took,” Motherboard, VICE’s technology website, amplified the recipe for baby-killing and said misoprostol is “relatively easy to acquire from veterinary sources.””


  11. AJ – That tweet yesterday about the reasons that women have abortions didn’t have a link to the source. I wanted to verify it, but googling did not bring up that particular graph. The only one I could find from Guttmacher is from 2004. (The same one was included in a 2021 article from a pro-life source.) These stats are somewhat different from the ones in the tweet, particular that that 92% “no reason” part is not there.

    Can you find the source for the graph from yesterday’s tweet? It’s possible that it is out there somewhere, but it is also possible that it was made up. I have become suspicious of posts that claim to have info from a well-known source, but then do not include a link, as I have learned that some of those are faked.

    Click to access 3711005t3.pdf


  12. You won’t see the exact chart at the Guttmacher site. That was made by the author using the Guttmacher provided stats. The stats however are available there, including the numbers for the reasons listed, although “no reason” wasn’t their wording, but what it amounted to.

    More here….


    “3.5% of Abortions Are for the “Hard Cases”
    Calculations based on statistics provided by medical journals and government surveys in the United States show that abortions for the “hard cases” are much rarer than most people believe.”

    A survey of more than 2.4 million aborting women performed by the states of Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah during the years 1996 to 2020 gives us an accurate estimate of the number of “hard case” abortions, since these are the numbers that abortion clinics must report in official documents to these states:

    1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
    1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
    0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
    0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
    3.50% for all the hard cases combined.
    96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.2

    Even the Guttmacher Institute puts the number of abortions done for the hard cases under 7% after doing several surveys of women obtaining abortions (the Guttmacher Institute was the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States. It is considered the most reliable provider of accurate statistics on abortion).”

    Here’s the numbers from Guttmacher they used. The HLI link also provides sourcing to other numbers they mention.

    Click to access 3711005.pdf


  13. As I said….

    “Abortion Might Not Be the Wedge Issue It Used to Be

    After years of partisan sorting on abortion, there probably aren’t many voters motivated by that issue left to turn out.”


    “This week Americans learned that Roe v. Wade, almost certainly the most famous Supreme Court precedent and which recognized a constitutional right to abortion, was set to be overturned, leaving the question of abortion up to the states. In the immediate aftermath of the biggest breach in Supreme Court history, political pundits across the spectrum divided on the potential motive of any leaker. But there appeared to be near-universal agreement that this would have an enormous impact on the midterm elections.

    Last year, I predicted that Republicans could experience a political backlash over abortion. Instead, Republicans saw near universal gains across the country. Why was I wrong? Because after 50 years of abortion politics sorting voters, maybe there is nobody left to lash back.

    After the Supreme Court allowed the Texas “bounty hunting” abortion law to go into effect last summer, I wrote that “Republicans in Washington [were] being uncharacteristically quiet — at least in part because they sense[d] that this law will do more to motivate the opposition than it will to rally the faithful.” And at the same time, the Texas law “allowed Democrats to unite their warring factions on the Hill, moved the news cycle off wall-to-wall coverage of Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and raised money for Democratic candidates” in advance of the 2021 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

    Then November happened. As predicted, the Democratic candidate, Terry McAuliffe, made abortion access a central focus of his campaign. Now a Republican is in the Virginia governor’s mansion for the first time since 2009. Governor Phil Murphy in New Jersey — a state that Joe Biden won by 16 points — sparred with his Republican opponent over Roe at debates and on the campaign trail. The race wasn’t able to be called on Election Night; Murphy eked out a win by barely 3 points.

    Almost a year since the Texas law went into effect, politically speaking, abortion was the dog that didn’t bite.

    At its most basic level, there are two ways a political issue can affect an election. Either it causes a meaningful number of voters to switch from one candidate to another or it increases turnout by motivating people disproportionately on one side of an issue to vote who otherwise would have stayed home.

    On the first point, the question is whether there are any voters left who would change their votes based on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. After decades of abortion litmus tests for candidates, what if the vast majority of voters already changed parties at some point to align with their beliefs on abortion or aligned their beliefs with their party’s increasingly firm ideological stand on the issue?

    In the 50 years since Roe was decided, the two political parties have shifted to become almost synonymous with their positions on this singular issue.

    At the 1972 Democratic Convention, 59 percent of delegates voted against an abortion-rights plank for the platform. Even as recently as 2009, 64 Democrats voted for an amendment to the Affordable Care Act restricting federal funding for abortions. In 2019, Kirsten Gillibrand campaigned on the idea that the Democratic Party should “be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be non-negotiable.” As John Murdock wrote in National Affairs, Gillibrand “eventually left the presidential race not because her abortion absolutism was too radical but because it was too common.” Today, only two Democrats in the House identify as “pro-life” and the number may well be zero by 2023.”


    99% of the country has already chosen their side. This will motivate one side just as much as the other. It’s a wash, and not even in most surveys top 10 issues that matter to voters.


  14. Yes, I had also seen the link you shared.

    So the tweet from yesterday with the 92% “no reason” pretty much boiled down some of the stated reasons given to “no reason” and then claimed that that’s what Guttmacher had posted? That’s why there was no link given.

    Look, you know that I am pro-life. But if we try to make our case by fudging the numbers according to our own views (“I don’t think this is a valid reason, therefore I count it as no reason”) then we are only going to push away some who may be on the fence, or further push away those who are already pro-choice. (Not saying that you personally are doing this, but referring to that misleading tweet.) It also shows a lack of sympathy or understanding for women in those situations.

    Yes, there are some women who are merely selfish in their decision to abort, but many (probably most) are in difficult circumstances that we may think are surmountable but they may not realize that.


  15. “No reason” (?) seems an unfair brush-off. And that’s where I think the work of the crisis pregnancy centers have been such a linchpin in the pro-life movement, meeting women where they are and helping them sort through what may seem like insurmountable problems in their lives to make a better decision than abortion.

    Christians are called to stand for life — and that also includes coming alongside those who are suffering, feel trapped, or otherwise are in a very hard time of their lives. Most are young and also don’t have a lot of life experience in working through hard times and situations to know that it will pass — and making a really bad decision like abortion will only extend the misery.

    Life is hard and messes happen, even to “good” people. While some folks may choose abortion callously, many (I’d say probably most) are simply caught in a very hard time of life and a pregnancy usually compounds all of that.

    Abortion looks like a quick fix, but it isn’t, according to those who have walked that path and later shared about it.

    Christians should be ready to lend an ear, spiritual comfort and material help to those in such predicaments.

    I think it’s really best — and more in following the path of Jesus — to remain nonjudgemental when it comes to women facing those decisions (or already having made them).

    Yes, abortion is the taking of a life and is a grave sin. But let’s step back and allow God, through his means of grace, including Christian friends and counselors, to lead them to repentance and new life before jumping into a Scarlet Letter reaction.

    In light of this, I also see today where the state of Louisiana is considering a law to make abortion a homicide and the woman legally responsible for murder. This seems like a horrible way to go, period; and, especially right now, it will add to the intense reactions already fueling yet another uproar in our nation.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. I also wonder how many of these women are under serious pressure from their families and boyfriends to abort.

    I’ve always thought abortion is something men, especially, would not want to see made more difficult.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Poll results often depend more on the question than people’s actual opinions, especially in complex issues. For many Roe vs Wade is a symbol of independence, privacy and limited government and thus they oppose its repeal but they can make allowances for abortion laws that understand the complexity of the issue.

    For some strange reason,women are often comfortable opening up to me and thus I’ve hear my share of abortion stories — ranging from convenience to genetic defects to rape. I wonder if the “no reason” is more likely “no reason given — none of your business”. Telling a pollster my reasons for an abortion doesn’t seem like a likely truth telling activity.

    Yes, there is plenty of charities or organization to offer women an alternative to abortion and they are important but none of it is systematic. A pro-life position should support free health care for pregnancy, birth, and post natal. Paid maternity leave is a given everywhere in the world except the US. Giving women paid time off from work to recover from pregnancy and to take care of the child is a no-brainer. I took a three month paid leave to help my wife take care of our daughter. Child income support from the government and subsidized day care also help. All these system supports go a long way to eliminating the financial and convenience rationale for an abortion.

    As a socialist, I often favor gov’t intervention but in some issues I’ve noticed the gov’t has little or no effect. Abortion is one of these issues. Despite having no gov’t rules on abortion except that its free, Canada has a relatively low abortion rate. People when given the right support and the right information will often make the right decision without having the hammer of the state force them.


  18. If a woman’s mother or the father of her child will not support her, she’ll abort. Lots of studies show that.

    DJ is right–compassion is needed, a listening ear, and words of hope.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Michelle — that was the reason my university friend gave for her abortion — the boyfriend was unsupportive. They broke up shortly afterwards. As some of you know, my ex and I had two children born with a terminal illness. I used to go to a parent group conference in the US, and given my Canadian nationality and lack of religious beliefs, women of evangelical background shared with me the difficulty of their decisions regarding testing and abortion — decisions they felt their family and friends would never understand. Abortion is not a simple issue.


  20. Kizzie,

    Doubt the stats if you wish, but Guttmacher, PP’s in house stat people say what they say.

    Convenience, if you prefer, rather than no reason. That’s actually worse.

    78% stated because it would drastically change their life. Duh. That’ll happen. And again a selfish reason to end a life.

    Selfish reasons is another way you could put it. Doesn’t change the numbers. The majority are for selfish reasons.


    Guttmacher own stats posted above page 3 state…

    “In the in-depth interviews, the three most frequently stated reasons were the same as in the structured survey: the dramatic impact a baby would have on the women’s lives
    or the lives of their other children (32 of 38 respondents), financial concerns (28), and their current relationship or fear of single motherhood (21). Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy

    •Changes in reasons, 1987–2004. Several questions were
    identical or virtually identical on the 1987 and 2004 surveys of reasons for abortion and are thus comparable (Table 2). The proportions of women giving four of the five most
    common reasons for abortion in 2004 were similar to those in 1987. Roughly equal proportions of women in both surveys indicated that a baby would dramatically change their
    lives, that they could not afford a baby now, that they did not want to be a single mother or had problems with their relationship, and that they were not ready for a child or another child. While some of these proportions showed statistically significant differences, in our assessment they were not substantial, because the percentage changes were small.
    However, the proportion of women indicating that they had completed their desired childbearing increased substantially (and significantly) between 1987 and 2004, from
    28% to 38%. To assess whether this shift was due to a change in mothers’ propensity to give this reason (in addition to the change in population composition described earlier), we stratified this analysis by both survey year and whether the woman had any children. The findings showed that mothers in 2004 were more likely to report this reason than were mothers in 1987 (not shown). Thus, the overall increase likely reflected both a rise in the proportion of abortion patients who were already mothers and an increased tendency of mothers to give this reason. The proportion of women indicating that having children or other
    dependents was a reason not to have another child increased from 22% to 32% between 1987 and 2004. This change, however, appeared to be due solely to the change in population composition (not shown). The proportion of women who cited a physical problem with their health also increased over the period.

    On the other hand, smaller proportions of women in 2004 than in 1987 said that having a baby would interfere with their job or career (38% vs. 50%), that they were not
    mature enough (22% vs. 27%), that their husband or partner wanted them to have an abortion (14% vs. 24%), and that they and their partner could not or did not want to get
    married (12% vs. 30%). In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest.

    •Most important reasons. In both 1987 and 2004, unreadiness for a child or another child and inability to afford a baby were each mentioned by about one-quarter of women
    as their most important reason for having an abortion (Table 3, page 114).* The proportion indicating that they had completed their childbearing, that they had others depending on them or that their children were grown increased over this period, from 8% to 19%. In contrast, the proportions reporting fear of single motherhood or relationship problems, and reporting that a child would interfere with school or career, both declined, as did the percentage describing themselves as not mature enough or too young. Seven percent of women cited health concerns for themselves or possible problems affecting the health of the fetus as their most important reason in 2004, about the same as in 1987. Only half a percent of women indicated that their partners’ or their parents’ desire for an abortion was the most important reason behind their decision”


    Again, it’s quite clear. You may not like them, but they are what they are. And I’m sorry, but financial concerns are no reason to end a life, and neither is your job an excuse, other than a selfish one.


  21. DJ and Michelle,

    I agree, when dealing with women contemplating it. In that case compassion must be front and center.

    But we’re adults, none of you are considering it, so I’m gonna state the truth.

    No reason may be an over simplification, but economic reasons are selfish. All parents struggle to raise kids, many of us raised one on our own for a time. But it’s life, and it’s hard. But again, no a reason to end a life. Pretending otherwise is not helping.


    “I also wonder how many of these women are under serious pressure from their families and boyfriends to abort.”

    That is addressed in the post at 9:13 and in the pdf from Guttmacher.

    “Only half a percent of women indicated that their partners’ or their parents’ desire for an abortion was the most important reason behind their decision””

    Just noise, like the rape, and health of mom issue. Tiny percentages of the total.


  22. Elsewhere I have read that a large percentage of women are pressured into abortion by parents or boyfriends. Perhaps they don’t want to admit that.


  23. I don’t think we’re saying finances are a reason to end a life — but remember, too, they’ve been told it’s not a life …

    And I do think women have a better understanding of other women on this issue.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Desperate people do desperate things.

    Some of these women, especially the younger ones, have no lifeline to hang on to financially. The thought of having to have a baby, which would include loss of income for at least a little while after the birth, and then provide for that baby (or another baby in the case of women who are already mothers) can be terrifying.


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 )

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.