Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Ask Questions!

2,946 Comments »

  1. The problem is the states have no power to instruct anyone at the national level. Repeal the 17th amendment. Currently Pennsylvania is being rolled for “Real ID” compliant drivers licenses and non-driver ID cards.
    If this convention happens do you think the states give (3/4) approval if big taxes are included? Thanks

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 13, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Robert,

      1. Yes, the 17th Amendment was a huge mistake. But Americans are easily deceived. They seem proud of being gullible.

      2. The States are NOT victims of federal tyranny – the States have been enthusiastic participants in federal tyranny. According to the PEW Report, for FY 2014, 30.8% of Pennsylvania’s revenue was from federal funds. What retained rights of the States and The People did your State government sell to get that money? HOW MUCH IN FEDERAL FUNDS IS PENNSYLVANIA GETTING TO IMPLEMENT “REAL ID” drivers’ license and other ID cards? The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to force States to do this – that’s why they pay – BRIBE – the States to do it.

      As long as we have State governments who, like Aldrich Ames, will do anything for money, we will HAVE A FEDERAL GOV’T WHICH USURPS POWER.

      The American People need to pay a whole lot more attention to the people they elect to their State legislatures. They have been electing people who have NO knowledge whatsoever of what our Founding Documents say.

      If there is an Article V convention, the Delegates won’t propose Amendments to our existing Constitution. We will end up with an entirely new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. The global elite wants us moved into the North American Union. See the most recent post on my blog.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  2. Yes Ron, the big bad wolf said he wouldn’t eat Little red Ridinghood too. Would you allow a child to play with a Boomslang? That is the equivalent of entertaining the CFA as a good idea, the analogy is apropos

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  3. Ron Swanson don’t you believe a bit of it. That is the beginning of a walk through hell.
    The only way I would give anyone plenipotentiary powers is if I was holding a loaded pistol to his head to have even a little confidence that he would carry through.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • In CFA, the delegates really don’t have that much power. The states that pass what is equivalent to a COS resolution, are signing a compact that they “pre-ratify” the amendment, which is specified in the compact. The convention is limited to 24 hours. The rules are very strict. It’s not open at all like even the BBA application. Read some of the info on this link. http://www.compactforamerica.org/single-post/2014/11/29/Got-the-Runaway-Convention-Blues It’s pretty full proof.

      Like

      Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • The purpose of the Compact is to get an Amendment pre-ratified BEFORE State Legislators and The People find out what has been done. The pre-ratification aspect circumvents all that pesky public discussion.

        Americans would NEVER support an Amendment which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress. So the way to get such an Amendment ratified is to bury the actual import of the Amendment in convoluted writing and get State Legislatures to pre-ratify it.

        Ron Swanson: Did YOU know that CFA’s proposed Amendment actually delegates to Congress the power to impose a new national sales tax AND a national Value Added Tax (VAT) on top of the existing income tax???

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

    • “The Compact automatically terminates and recalls any member state delegate who deviates from its rules and agenda.”

      Like

      Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Oh, Ron! You show your hand – at first I thought you had questions about the CFA scheme. Now I see you know all about it…..

        As you well know, once a State Legislature passes the Compact Legislation – they have pre-ratified the NEW TAXES AMENDMENT. The provisions about the convention, the sentence you just now quoted, etc., etc., is all window dressing to conceal the actual import of the pre-ratification of the new taxes amendment.

        How could you push such a wicked scheme to deceive the American People?

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  4. PH,
    Art III does not appear to grant the supreme court authority–much less exclusive authority– to interpret the Constitution. From my readings, it appears empowered to review and to issue opinions (vs rulings) with respect to constitutionality of a law’s or a lower court ruling, but that’s it. Seems to me weve recklessly permitted SCOTUS awesome powers not delegated to them by the Constitution. One wonders why have a legislature at all!! In short, we’ve invested far too much unconstitutional POWER in the hands of these black-robed oligarchs and it’s frightening. What’s your abbreviated understanding as to what authority the framers granted to the SC? Also, even if Congress impeaches a faithless judge, impossible to remove him/her unless convicted by 2/3 of Senate. Correct? Shouldn’t there be a tightening up of controls, which would involve State input as well, over the federal judiciary? And isn’t this sufficiently alarming to warrant an amendment to do just that. I weary of judicial tyranny which most Americans have come to view as virtue. Tragic and scary.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Jim Delaney | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I’ve written much on the supreme Court’s usurpations of power – look under the categories for 14th Amendment, and separation of church and state.

      This paper addresses the enumerated powers of the federal courts – they actually have limited jurisdiction! https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/

      The supreme Court was NEVER intended to be the final authority on the Constitution! Remember, federal courts are merely the “creature” of the Constitution and are completely subject to its terms.

      Our Framers always said the States are the final authority on whether the acts of the federal government are constitutional; and we have as much right to judge the acts of the Supreme Court as we do the other branches of the federal gov’t. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Right you are.

      I’ve written much on the Supreme Court’s usurpations of power. Look under the Categories “14th Amendment” and “separation of church and state”.

      The powers delegated to the federal courts are enumerated and limited: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/

      Our Framers always said that the States are the final authority on whether the acts of their “creature” [the federal gov’t] are constitutional: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification/

      our problems today are:
      1) Americans don’t know this; and
      2) They are too cowardly to do what our Framers told them to do: resist!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • so if every amendment i the constitution can be repealed or abolished why was there a bill of rights created and what good is a constitution if you can change it as you wish and has no solid foundation which keeps certain aspects of it intact such as the bill of rights defines , so again , why was the bill of rights created and signed after the constitution?

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

        • OK, Steve. I give up. There is no use continuing on this topic! Forget about it and then come back to it later with fresh eyes.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  5. Thanks. It looks like they are reinventing the wheel.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  6. What about XVIII/XXI? Nothing is sacred.

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I pointed that out – to no avail.
      Patriot myths get firmly embedded.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  7. Curious as to your thoughts on the lmmigration kerfluffle.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/12/28/usappeals-court-approves-iranian-student-deportation/3930b354-c5c6-45be-8124-22cfd6cff296/

    Like

    Comment by Robert | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • I’ve printed out the E.O.s and the trial court’s Order – will look at them and write it up – as soon as I can get to it. I spend all my time now trying to stop the con-con.

      I’ll have to begin with asking how Americans ever let themselves be manipulated into the Lie of Multiculturalism. Our Framers weren’t multiculturalists!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  8. What do you think about the Compact for America Article V Convention? I was curious, because they seem to take all the possibility of a runaway convention out. http://www.compactforamerica.org/single-post/2014/11/29/Got-the-Runaway-Convention-Blues

    Like

    Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Ron,

      My two papers on the CFA re here: What it actually does is delegate to Congress massive new taxing powers: The power to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) – on top of the existing income tax. Read the paper at the bottom first https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

      The language of the actual compact legislation is so boring it is difficult to read – nevertheless, I read it all, and then re-read!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

      • Wow. Thanks for your info! In general, what do you think of the process CFA is trying. Is that a good way to go about doing an Article V Convention if there was a decent amendment?

        Like

        Comment by Ron Swanson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

        • I have two papers on Compact for America’s (CFA) phony “balanced budget amendment” (BBA). It is actually a massive new taxes amendment – it delegates to Congress the power to impose two new national taxes: a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) on top of the income tax! See the two papers here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/compact-for-america/

          The “compact method” of obtaining amendments to our Constitution is unconstitutional. Article V of our Constitution sets forth the two methods of obtaining amendments. James Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should instruct their Delegations to Congress to propose them.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2017 | Reply

  9. Authorizing someone (delegates) to exercise plenipotentiary powers in respect to our Constitution, in a new Article 5 Constitutional Convention, might aptly be compared to giving a general & unlimited power of attorney to one trusted friend and the very same power of attorney to 49 strangers at the same time, and trusting them all to respect our rights and best interests.

    By the time the strangers finished emptying our bank accounts or transferring our properties, it would be too late to rescind the power of attorney authorizations. Our money and our property would already be gone. It could easily be the same with a COS, considering the wide variety of forces that are pushing for an Article 5 Convention from both Democrats and Republicans (and others) with each group looking to gain additional federal governmental powers or restrictions to help their particular special interest group. Our individual rights or even our system of divided powers could be fundamentally altered in an Article 5 Convention. It only takes several words inserted here, or a phrase inserted there, to make a substantial difference kn the reading & meaning of the Constitution.

    The “giving power of attorney to a stranger” analogy (above) is sort of like the “giving a blank check to a stranger” argument that I’ve used when speaking to our State legislators against requesting that Congress call an Article 5 Convention, or a COS, or a Constitutional Convention (they are all the same).

    Not one of the legislators that I’ve spoken to yet has told me that they would give a blank personal check to a stranger (or to 49 other strangers) and trust them to not abuse that trust… and that’s exactly what calling an Article 5 Convention would amount to.

    Most people that I know would be hesitant to even give a blank check to many of their own relatives, and knowing some of their relatives I don’t blame them.

    I am also confident that none of my legislators would be willing to give a general power of attorney to even one stranger let alone 49 others that they could not intimately & unconditionally control. And as we know, that is impossible.

    I have simply asked them not to do the equivalent with our Constitution, and to NOT request that Congress call a Convention.

    If they think that the Constitution is not adequate to meet today’s needs, and if they wish to amend the Constitution, let’s use the very same method that brought us the 13th Amendment or the Bill of Rights. In doing so, we will know the exact proposed language of the new amendment BEFORE it is even voted on by Congress or sent to the States for ratification. Special interests will have no opportunity whatsoever, to meddle with or otherwise alter, our rights, our freedoms, or our fundamental system of governmental checks & balances.

    Like

    Comment by B. Carson | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  10. So your saying then that the bill of rights are subject to abolishment to , correct ? so thats why i believe the bill of rights were create to keep the original amendments safe by calling them rights and put in a seperate document

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution can be repealed by later Amendments. They aren’t in a separate document – they are additions to the original Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  11. where did it say in the constitution that slavery was permitted ? so if slavery was permitted they could make another amendment to abolish it ?

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 7, 2017 | Reply

    • The original Constitution accepted slavery as an ongoing institution: Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3 and Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 3.
      The 13th Amendment superseded those provisions and abolished slavery.

      Abolitionists were at the federal convention of 1787 (e.g., Alexander Hamilton); but other Delegates at that convention wouldn’t hear of abolishing slavery….and so we fought a war and huge numbers of Americans were killed.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 7, 2017 | Reply

  12. Steve, I suggest you read the preamble to the Bill of rights. they would be no Bill of rights if they were not demanded by the people. a number of states, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends to this institution. the bill of rights were interwoven into the one whole cloth Constitution with many Chapters mixed together make them One Book of Law which we call our Constitution

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  13. being it is totally seperate from the constitution and called the bill of rights

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • No, Steve, that is not correct. You are taking a wrong turn. The first ten amendments are part of the Constitution. The idea that they “can’t” be amended is a myth.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  14. THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Really? From where do you obtain such a ….. novel idea?

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

      • theres 3 .. 1. declaration of independence , 2. the bill of rights and 3. the constitution.. all three created separately or have i been mis reading how and why they were created ?

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • 1. The Declaration of Independence (DOI) is The Fundamental Act of our Founding.

          2. The Constitution drafted at the federal Convention of 1787 implemented – to a great extent – the Principles set forth in our DOI. See this chart: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf

          [Obviously, to the extent the original Constitution permitted slavery, it violated the Principle in the DOI, that “all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. Other than that manifestation of fallen human nature, the Constitution of 1787 was a 5,000 year miracle.]

          The 27 Amendments are part of the Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  15. If it can be amended out of the constitution where in the Constitution did we grant anyone the enumerated power to do so? I didn’t think so. where is the Articl, section, and Clause?

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 6, 2017 | Reply

    • Con Ma, the procedures for ratification of new Amendments is set forth in Article V, US Constitution.

      Congress decides whether a proposed Amendment is to be sent to the State Legislatures for ratification or rejection; or whether the States are to call conventions within their respective States to decide whether to ratify or reject a proposed Amendment.

      An Amendment to our US Constitution may address ANY provision in the Constitution including the Amendments. E.g., the 21st Amdt repealed the 18th Amdt.
      And many of us would dearly love to see Amendment repealing the 16th & 17th Amendments.

      So yes, State legislators or state convention delegates could vote to ratify an amendment repealing the “bill of rights” or any portions thereof.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  16. In re the fed. district ct. judge’s TRO on Trump’s immigration halt. As I understand it, the plaintiffs are states.
    If that is so, then does the part of Article 3, Section 2 which says “…In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”…..does that mean a district Ct. judgeis out of bounds issuing a TRO?

    Like

    Comment by bobmontgomery | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, if the States are parties to cases involving federal issues such as this, then you are correct: The trial should take place in the Supreme Court.

      Here are my two papers on that issue when the feds sued Arizona – the earliest one is at the bottom: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/arizona-lawsuit/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • Thanks, PH. I thought original jurisdition meant what it said, and how an “opinion” or even a statute can either absolve SCOTUS from it’s duties or infringe upon it’s constitutional mandate is beyond me. But still, even if it ends up that SCOTUS is the tryer of the case, can a district judge issue a TRO until SCOTUS takes it up, even if the district judge doesn’t have “original jurisdiction”?

        Like

        Comment by bobmontgomery | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Well, actually the federal district court has no jurisdiction in this matter – so his acts are “void” for lack of jurisdiction. He can’t lawfully do anything except remove it to the Supreme Court.

          But look! Long ago, Congress passed a statute (!) saying federal district courts would have original jurisdiction in cases like this and lawyers all went along with it – most of them don’t know what Art. III, Sec. 2 says, anyway; and they don’t care, they just go along with what they’ve been told….. no one thinks independently – except for a very few of us. The others just go along with what everybody else says and does…

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  17. only the constitution can be amended.. the bill of (secured) rights had to be created before the constitution was ratified

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  18. is not the 2d amendment not in the bill of rights ? the bill of rights can not be changed

    Like

    Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

    • Of course it can be changed – it can be amended out of the Constitution, just as slavery was amended out of the Constitution. Or, if we get a new Constitution, such as “The Constitution for the Newstates of America”, we will all be disarmed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

      • the 13th amendment was added to the constitution. as thats what the constitution is for

        Like

        Comment by steve | February 5, 2017 | Reply

        • Right, the 13th Amendment was added to our Constitution during 1865; and it superseded all provisions to the contrary in the preceding parts of our Constitution.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  19. Re. Sanctuary city’s or States have to sware or affirm to do their best to do their duty to preserve protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. they have violated their Oath in California, they have an ordinance which restricts gun rights. Not everyone voted for the gun restriction but from what is available the ban is State wide. James Madison Said that no majority can take away the rights of the minority. (Albert Gallatin of New York Historical Society, October7, 1789) that alone is enough to bring charges of discrimination and violation of the full faith and credit clause. Also violates the General Welfare clause which remains unamended and still holds the meaning as it was ratified. the 1828 Dictionary says Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity;The enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. The violations by the State can and most assuredly will, bring litigation costs in the millions when the greedy figure it out.

    Like

    Comment by Con Ma | February 5, 2017 | Reply

  20. Are States required to cooperate with the lawful actions of the federal government? It seems obvious they should be. I just read that Oregon will no longer assist or cooperate with ICE agents efforts to locate or apprehend “undocumented immigrants”.
    This amounts to the governor enabling the flight of illegal aliens from the law.
    Gov. Kate Brown thinks she is justified in opposing the rule of law when she disagrees with legitimate and constitutional laws, as liberals always think.

    What is the remedy for these types of cases? Gov. Abbott of Texas recently cut off law enforcement assistance funds to a county in Texas which also refuses to work with ICE.
    That is a practical response.

    But what is the legal remedy?

    Like

    Comment by topcat1957 | February 4, 2017 | Reply

    • I’m in a rush – so will give you the short answer. Even if the federal gov’t is carrying out a constitutional function (well, it’s theoretically possible that they might do something constitutional now and then), they cannot force States, Counties, etc., to use their own resources to enforce federal laws. This is the famous anti-commandeering doctrine

      http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ Anything written by Mike Maharrey will be spot on correct and well written!

      If States subvert, interfere, etc. with the feds when the feds are carrying out a constitutional function, then the States would be subject to the prescribed penalties, etc. One would have to examine the enabling legislation to see what penalties, etc.

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2017 | Reply

      • Thanks.
        I suppose this means Trump has to ask for cooperation between ICE and their LE agencies and other agencies which might have data which can help them. The States or counties or cities can then refuse to cooperate. OK, but if the federal government is providing any auxiliary funding for the agencies in question, he could choose to cut those funds in response, or at least a portion of them. Trump knows how to negotiate well. I imagine he will work this out.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by topcat1957 | February 6, 2017 | Reply

        • Well, Trump’s duty is to enforce Constitutional laws of Congress. I have been so busy trying to stop an Article V convention that I haven’t had time to red all the immigration laws passed by Congress.

          But the bottom line is that if any federal agencies of the executive Branch are disobeying the Constitution or constitutional federal laws; then Trump is in a position to lock their heels.

          If States or Cities are violating constitutional acts of Congress, then they are subject to the penalties set forth in the Act for violations of its provisions by States or cities.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 6, 2017 | Reply

  21. I have a problem with the phrase “constitutional illiterates on the Supreme Court.” I see this as saying that they don’t know that they are destroying the Constitution and thereby violating their oath of office and showing themselves to be internal enemies.

    Like

    Comment by Randy Claywell | February 1, 2017 | Reply

    • Well, I was being generous to them. I know how they were brainwashed in law school to believe the rubbish they spout. That doesn’t excuse them; they are still morally culpable; but people generally tend to believe what they are told and what the people around them believe. I suppose this is due to cowardice and laziness.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 1, 2017 | Reply

  22. I share your sentiments, PH. Good intentions are seldom equivalent to solid constitutional law. I look eagerly forward to your article which I plan to share with my conceal-carry friends and key congressional reps . Despite the fact many of my friends may not want to hear the “truth”, they’re, so far as I can tell, solid constitution-first types and will carefully review their positions on this matter. I’ve already warned them. Also, I pray you share your analysis with NRA and GOA. The ignorance, intentional or otherwise, even within “patriotic” organizations, is frightening and alarming. Finally, what is the best constitutional way to advance interstate conceal-carry–states urged to agree to do so among themselves. Thanks a million!!!!!

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 31, 2017 | Reply

  23. PH,
    Don’t know if you remember my query some 4 weeks ago re Congress’ interest in enacting a right-to-carry reciprocity law. An NRA member, I was confused by an article in their February1st Freedom magazine which unconvincingly (to me, anyway) posited the following: “One of the most important issues facing the new Congress will be legislation to protect the safety of interstate travelers so that a person who has a conceal-carry permit at home can lawfully carry in other states. Some people wonder if such federal legislation would violate the letter or spirit of states’ rights. In fact, national Right-to-Carry legislation is solidly within Congress’ 14th Amendment powers to protect the Second Amendment and the right to travel.” What’s your initial take on this assertion?

    Like

    Comment by Jim Delaney | January 30, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi Jim,

      I mean to write an Article on this – I printed out the federal bill you mention – but haven’t had time to do anything on it – I am so busy trying to get States all over the Country not to pass any more applications to Congress for an Article V convention, and to rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.

      The NRA is in serious need of some clear thinkers – they don’t have a Principled basis for what they do and say.

      The claim that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amd’t incorporates the 2nd Amdt is utter rubbish [as contrary to the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amdt]. However, that is the doctrine put out by the constitutional illiterates on our supreme Court.

      My various papers on the 14th Amendment prove the original intent of Sec. 1 – I rely heavily on Prof. Raoul Berger who proved the original intent of that Section. It had to do with protecting freed slaves – it had nothing to do with killing babies, homosexual acts, marriage, and gun rights.

      I’ll have to do some clever thinking to justify the federal right-to-carry law – and clever thinking might not be enough, since Truth must always trump all else. And since I haven’t read it, I may find that it is so horrible that no rational person would want it.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 31, 2017 | Reply


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: