Posted by: michelle2005 | February 19, 2009

Ann Coulter’s Latest Rant

There really is nothing I can add to the article below.  The racist, ultra-conservative rhetoric is again spewing out of Ann Coulter’s mouth.  The article is from the “HateWatch” arm of the “Southern Poverty Law Center”.




Columnist Ann Coulter Defends White Supremacist Group

Posted in Extremist Propaganda by Mark Potok on February 13, 2009

Rabid far-right commentator Ann Coulter is known across America for sliming everyone and everything she disagrees with. Al Gore is a “total fag” and another one-time presidential candidate, John Edwards, is the same. Democrats are “gutless traitors” and their convention a “Spawn of Satan” gathering. Muslims are “ragheads” and America should “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Jews are people who need to be “perfected.” The New York Times building and its editorial staff should be bombed. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should have “rat poisoning” mixed into his food. Princess Diana “ostentatiously [had] sex in front of [her] children.” The Rev. Al Sharpton is “a fat, race-baiting black man.” President Bill Clinton was “a very good rapist,” and North Korea should be “nuked.”


But despite denouncing school desegregation as a “spectacular” failure, Coulter has generally avoided bolstering white supremacist hate groups. Until now, that is.


In her latest foaming-mouth tome — Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, released on Jan. 6 — Coulter spends the better part of three pages defending a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which The New York Times had described as a “thinly veiled white supremacist organization.” Coulter begs to differ. The CCC, Coulter opines, is “a conservative group” that has unfairly been branded as racist “because some of the directors of the CCC had, decades earlier, been leaders of a segregationist group.” “There is no evidence on its Web page that the modern incarnation of the CCC supports segregation,” she says. “Apart from some aggressive reporting on black-on-white crimes — the very crimes that are aggressively hidden by the establishment media — there is little on the CCC website suggesting” that the group is racist. Indeed, its main failing is “containing members who had belonged to a segregationist group thirty years earlier.”


Coulter could hardly be more wrong. And even if she can’t find time to read beyond a page of the CCC’s website, she really ought to know — after all, the organization where she frequently speaks, the Conservative Political Action Committee, has publicly banned the CCC from its annual gathering because it is racist. Also in the late 1990s, Jim Nicholson, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, asked GOP members to stay away from the CCC because of its “racist and nationalist views.”


How could conservative Republicans be inspired to say such ugly things? Let us count the ways.


The CCC’s columnists have written that black people are “a retrograde species of humanity,” and that non-white immigration is turning the U.S. population into a “slimy brown mass of glop.” Its website has run photographic comparisons of pop singer Michael Jackson and a chimpanzee. It opposes “forced integration” and decries racial intermarriage. It has lambasted black people as “genetically inferior,” complained about “Jewish power brokers,” called gay people “perverted sodomites,” and even named the late Lester Maddox, the baseball bat-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia, “Patriot of the Century.”


One day, the CCC ran photos on its home page of accused Beltway snipers John Muhammad and John Malvo, 9/11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui and accused shoe-bomber Richard Reed. “Notice a Pattern Here?” asked a caption underneath the four photos. “Is the face of death black after all?” On another occasion, its website featured a photo of Daniel Pearl, the “Jewish Wall Street Journal reporter” who had just been decapitated by Islamic terrorists. In the photo, Pearl was shown with his “mixed-race wife, Marianne.” The headline above the couple’s picture was stunning even for the CCC: “Death by Multiculturalism?” The CCC Arkansas chapter ran an essay waxing nostalgic for the days “when racial separation was the norm.”




But to Ann Coulter, there is “no evidence” on its website that the CCC “supports segregation.” Mostly, she says, the group — which was formed from the debris of the White Citizens Councils that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once called “the uptown Klan” — is about “a strong national defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the traditional family, and an ‘America First’ trade policy.” Indeed, she says, The New York Times and other critics of the CCC are simply liberals “who have no principles.”








  1. The real questions are: “Is” Al Gore a “fag?” Ditto for “Pretty Boy” Edwards. And as far as a meeting of Democrats being a “Spawn of Satan”, I don’t recall reading about any White people attending Rev. Wright’s “Sermons.”

    I learned early on that “…If you don’t like the party (no pun intended), leave. Darfur; The Congo; Ethiopia beckons.

    It appears this article really rattled your chain. Why you have so many issues I don’t know. Hey, you said if I didn’t like the party I could leave…the door swings both ways. The anger in your comment comes through loud and clear.

    As far as Darfur, etc…I spent 30 years overseas as a Humanitarian Aid Relief Coordinator and Educator for First Responders, working across four continents. What have you done?

    You may not have ever seen any photos of white folks in Rev. Wright’s church…but that doesn’t mean they weren’t there. I’d visited there numerous times and was by no stretch of the imagination the only white face in the congregation. Do I agree with everything he’s said…No…but I don’t feel a need to agree with everyone regarding all issues of life in order to get along with them. There’s value in each person…something you seem not to know.


  2. llabesab needs to crawl back under the rock where he came from.

    I read this about Ann Coulter yesteday on the SPLC website. Thank you for posting it. Your work in other media sources is great. I first found your site through the link you provided at the NY Times.


    Thanks for taking the time to read this article. There is always so much information on the SPLC web site. I find it astonishing when someone seems not to know of this organization.

    I forwarded to you the info you requested. I hope it helps. Let me know.


  3. whats wrong with white people only wanting to live and work with other white people. i’m sick of everyone telling us what we should and shouldnt believe


    You are snared by your very words. In case you’ve forgotten everyone in the USA (except our Native American citizens) are ALL from someplace else.

    My guess is you’re a child, otherwise you’d have gained some insight into right and wrong. There would have been some concrete thought regarding race, etc. You freely admit you’re white (as am I) however, the only ones that think there is no issue with race in our nation are the ones that have never had to deal with it.


  4. Kick a@@ article. Thank you for having the balls to post it.


    I can assure you I do not have the anatomy to which you referred. However, when my hubby read your comment…we both laughed out loud. He then told me that if I did have the anatomy you mentioned…they would be made of brass 🙂


  5. Michelle,

    In your reply to the first comment you said,” There’s value in each person…something you seem not to know.” I think the same can be said of Ann Coulter. Coulter takes aim at abortion as fearlessly and staunchly as anyone. She has championed many good ideas equally as much as she has gone over the top on other issues.

    Isn’t there “value” in her life? Why defend Rev. Wright, but not Coulter? What’s the difference? And what’s the point?

    Wright wouldn’t be an issue — at all — it’s a free country — except that Obama spent 20 years in the guy’s church, then later professed ignorance regarding Wright’s racist ideas. But did Coulter champion McCain? She said she’d rather support Hillary. Her coming round to McCain’s side was nothing if not reluctant. The Republican candidate was not “tainted” by Coulter the way Obama was tainted with Wright.

    As to her recent book, I haven’t read it. However, I did read “Godless” which has moments of down right brilliance. She is very satirical in it, but she makes some very strong arguments about propaganda in American society, an argument that she backs up very strongly with supportive evidence.

    Not everything she writes is equally worthwhile. And in interviews, she comes across as very abrasive. But I created the screen name “Ann’s New Friend” in sympathy with Ann Coulter, actually. It was after reading something Al Franken said about her — saying she “has no friends” — a tasteless, untrue and typically intimidating tactic of the left (be with us or “be square”).

    So, I figured: “she has my friendship.” And as I recall, Jesus was very adept at picking up friendships among people that society thought were worthless. So I would be surprised if she has His friendship as well.

    You were on stronger ground when you said you wanted to get rid of labels. But I understand your anger, because I feel something similar from the other side.

    Best wishes,


  6. “would not be surprised” My typo makes me seem the opposite of what I meant, near the end of my comment.

    Sorry my comments are so long. Haven’t the time to edit. Concise writing takes twice as long to do as long-winded writing!

  7. ANF,

    What a brilliant writer you are, taking time to edit comments. Why not take shots at those who can expound upon a point. Yep that is long winded.

    Here is the point; Rev. Wright built a community, empowered people. He taught his congregation to work to better their corner of the world, a place abandoned by government. Rev. Wright’s Chicago was a place tarnished by the legacy of President Ronald Reagan, whose tax cuts ultimately cut funding to vulnerable people. People Republicans and President Reagan labeled “Welfare Queens, a stereotype that cut too many people off from help they needed. Rev Wright’s sermons were not like Father Coughlin, who condemned Jewish people seeking refuge during WWII. While I do not agree with all of Rev. Wrights words, I cannot condemn the work he has done.

    Do not tell me that by her reckless criticism Ann Coulter has empowered people. If anything her calling people of progressive persuasions, in actuality those who disagree with her traitors and, godless is not productive. Some would say that the attacks at a “Liberal” church in Tennessee, the murder of the Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman, lay at the feet of those who use such epithets.

    Is this how we should treat those who honestly disagree, with epithets? I think it is shear madness to use such vile labels. These words are used to stir passions, just like Ann Coulter’s hero Sen. Joseph McCarthy did with the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAAC) witch-hunt of the 1950’s.

    Just like the another war cry of the past, “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain”, to inflame and start the Spanish American War. What Ann Coulter does was once known as Yellow Journalism, except Ann is not a journalist.

    For you to defend someone who would label their political opponents as Godless, or traitors is too vile to contemplate. I would never use the sentence “I did read Godless which has moments of down right brilliance.” Because Ann Coulter’s basic premise is that, her opponents do not even worship the same God as she, in fact to Coulter they are unworthy of redemption. And, you call that brilliant! Those who are truly godless are not to be judged by the likes of Ann Coulter.

    Coulter, begins Godless by quoting Romans: “They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the creator…. Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor, for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature. — Romans 1:25-26” What makes her so sure that she knows the truth?


    As usual your comment is brilliant! I am profoundly grateful that you took the time to give an indepth reply to “Ann’s New Friend”. There were several other folks that also commented to her directly…however, I chose not to publish them as they were too harsh with no fact!

    Yes, I received your latest attachment in your email and will respond to it as soon as I get a free moment.


  8. Michelle … I mean oh one with the brass ones …

    One side of me says well done … yet the other side wonders if Ann Coulter worth the space, effort, and frustration to write about. … and on the other hand again, some can effectively do so, as yourself, and probably not I … so Kudos to you!

    To ANF,
    Yes … the is value in every person … and in Ann Coulter too … but why is so hostile & negative to others? … and why would anyone want to embrace that side of anyone?


    You always make me laugh just when I need it 🙂

    Thank you for stopping by my site again. You are always such a delight.


  9. Well Ann Coulter is crazy. There’s more that I would like to say about her, but I want to be respectable. Ignorance is the early symptoms of the cancer of hate.

    Tim, My Friend…

    When I read your comment…”Ignorance is the early symptoms of the cancer of hate”…that was a profound statment. Is this something you heard…or was it’s something you’d written yourself?


  10. To Allen,

    Your comments are angry in a way that I am doubtful of being very persuasive, but I’ll give it a try.

    Ann Coulter’s “brilliant” moment in “Godless” (one of them) would be her critique of Darwin’s theory of species change. If you can get past politics and read her arguement carefully, she makes a very strong, rational case. I found it persuasive enough that for the first time I begin to wonder if Darwinism is correct scientifically.

    I was/am curious if scientists have addressed her thesis, particularly since she is so influential politically, but so far I’m unaware whether anyone has. Not saying that no one has done so, but if a biologist (or several) has addressed her specific arguments I am unaware of it. I looked briefly to Dawkins for a rebuttal, but did not find one. And the whole matter is out of my field.

    However, I would enjoy seeing a scientific rebuttal. Perhaps from a scientific standpoint a rebuttal is easy (?)– I don’t know, but I would like to see it. In that regard, Coulter makes a rigorous intellectual arguement about a significant tenet of modern intellectual history. So, I call her “brilliant.” It’s exactly the kind of intellectual exchange that leads forward into new ideas. Even if she is mistaken, she opens up the idea to further thought in new directions.

    As to your other comments, I think you are simply more forgiving of Wright because he flies under your banner (so to speak) and critical of Coulter because she represents the “other side.” The “other side” however may not resemble in reality anything of the stereotype that you’ve formed about it in your mind.

    I’ll use myself as an example. I am white and have lived in a black neighborhood for some 20+ years. But being a Republican, I am of course a “racist” by definition. I have friends in another state who have to travel hundreds of miles even to see someone with brown skin. But they are Democrats and hence by definition are great lovers of all mankind.

    The GOP has Colin Powell, then Condi Rice as first and second black Secretaries of State. But that doesn’t count. The current leader of the GOP Michael Steele was the first Lt. Gov. of Maryland. Didn’t count. For some reason black people of prominence in the GOP are “uncle Toms,” again, by definition. Even Obama in his inauguration, inviting the comparison of himself with Lincoln and Martin Luther King, compares himself with two famous Republicans. Kind of ironic.

    No amount of wealth in the Democrat party — from Sarandon to the Kennedys ever makes the Democrats a party of the rich because by definition the GOP is rich. I’ve been lower middle class all my life (no complaints), but I am by definition RICH! Alas, I cannot spend my vast wealth.

    My foremost reason for registering as a Republican — I do not define myself as Republican, by the way — the whole labeling thing is more a Dem habit — is abortion. I’m against it. It’s murder. As long as the Democratic party enshines it, they lose my vote.

    Other ideals of the GOP that I admire are its emphasis on individual liberty and small government. I favor individuals making the primary decisions in life rather than having decisions them made for them, using their money, by fiat, from an elite group “above.”

    These are ideals about which one can be justly proud. As to your comments about Reagan, you cite the usual stereotypical criticisms — would that you thought the truth was worth knowing enough that you’d take the time to research the life of a man you find it so easy to condemn.

    But the “us against them” dynamic is ultimately a dead letter. No one ever ends up understanding anyone that way. You get to enjoy feeling self-righteous. So do I. But it’s just a brand of racism too.

    People form groups. “Ours is right and just. Yours is not.” It’s basic to human nature. People have fought with each other in these terms since time began. It needs to be resisted so that individuals can open their minds to other points of view. But it’s hard to see the world from someone else’s eyes, and it takes a lot of effort — more effort than most of us want to expend.

    Best wishes,



    I want to thank you again for taking time to visit my site. I’ve always appreciated open communication..whether they agree or disagree with one another.



  11. another oopsie: Steele was the first Black Lt Gov of Maryland — but you knew that

  12. To afrankangle,

    “Yes … the is value in every person … and in Ann Coulter too … but why is [she] so hostile & negative to others?”

    That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer. Just guessing: I’d suspect that one reason for her abrasiveness is that it gets her noticed — particularly at a time when the media generally is biased in favor of Democrat views.

    Other reasons might be personal, having to do with her personal life experiences.

    In any case, if one reads past the tone and looks at her ideas, many of them have strong merit. While obviously some things, she says are for the sake of the fireworks.

    Another reason: she’s angry. And so that’s what she expresses.


  13. A neighbor told me about your blog. I am so glad that I took the time to look through most all your posts. The level of undertanding you have on so many topics really surprised me.

    Of course, I’ve not yet been able to read all of them, which I plan on doing. The photographs you’ve selected on each post is relevant to all you publish.

    Your research into the what you write is meticulous and you provide the necessary and valuable corresponding validation. It’s easy to see that you obtain your information from more sources than I imagine most individuals would be willing to take the time to do.

    I live in Wincrange Luxembourg but was born in Sheffield England. I’ve never been to your country, but it’s a dream of myself and family. We are happy for all of you with the way your presidential election. It gives us all renewed hope.

  14. ANF,

    First, it is amazing that someone can be so perceptive as to determine my affect just from reading my well-reasoned comment. Secondly, Rev. Wright does “not fly under my banner.” I carefully weigh out a person’s contributions. On the pro-con side Rev. Wright has a much greater upside than Ms. Coulter, he built a community. I have tremendous respect for Colin Powell, but I still object to his UN speech. I suspect that he does as well, since the data he presented was not well vetted. Curveball, the CIA operative was not a reliable source and the big boys in the Bush administration knew it. Still all in all Powell is at least willing to admit that the hamlet strategy in Viet Nam was not humane. Burning villages and destroying villagers food, was not a way to win hearts and minds… but I digress:

    The important thing to understand is that it is not whom you live with or what party of which you are affiliated but rather what has been accomplished. ANF, you consistently get two things twisted, adding two plus two and coming up with twelve. First, one does not easily get past the epithets and vileness of what passes for your perceived well-reasoned analysis. But then again you stated, “Even if she is mistaken, she opens up the idea to further thought in new directions.” Bravo, we should pursue new wrong directions. That is good and is exactly the posture of the Discovery Center the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. Add doubt and shout, no need for any substance.

    Theories are by definition well reasoned explanations of observable phenomena. They have been tested and retested using scientific methods. Some theories present with material not easily comprehended, such as special relativity. Do you also question the theory that light is both a particle (as in a photon of energy) and wave (as in visible and invisible spectra)? That is the foundation of quantum mechanics. Hard to prove with mere words, but quantum mechanics still stands up to scientific rigor. By the way, numerous scientists have refuted Ann Coulter’s arguments on evolution; all you have to do is Google Ann Coulter and Godless

    Do you really think that scientific community simply gave a pass to Charles Darwin, and now a non-scientific world has chosen to illuminate what science has failed? The greatest breakthrough of science was when the church could no longer cast the weight of heresy towards those who disagreed. How ironic that now fundamentalist churchgoers now cast aspersions on science. The biggest error is the belief that one cannot believe in God and evolution simultaneously.

    Ann Coulter’s words fits into your gestalt. It is therefore easy for you to agree. Similarly, President Ronald Reagan also fits into your worldview. Neither of these people challenged your beliefs rather they simply reinforced them. What I look at is the result. There is less money for the poor and infirm since Ronald Reagan took office. No amount of reading his letters can change that fact. People are struggling and the rich has gotten much much richer while the middle class fails to advance. Ann Coulter and others of her ilk, feed into the insecurities of the middle class.

    The problem is that most of the insecurities were largely created by the very people you champion.
    Those tax cuts did not really help the middle class all that much, but it sure bred insecurity as the programs they no longer funded would have made life much harder for those in the middle. You have bought into the less government, is less wasteful argument.

    All those that know me, know that I am not in the least interested in beating my chest. I work to help those who cannot help themselves. I have seen first hand the suffering of the least of our brothers and sisters. I make no distinction black, yellow, red, brown or white, all suffer, and pain is pain. I do take the time to listen to all sides of an argument. I probably spend more times listening and reading material from the conservative viewpoint.

    I understand fiscal responsibility, but I see contradictions on both side of the aisle. I understand the position of the right to life, but know that neither side is correct on all components of this topic. You cannot expect abstinence only to prevent pregnancy, while promoting ignorance of contraception. Similarly, one cannot allow people to use abortion as birth control. Of course, these are overly simplistic arguments. The reality is somewhat murkier. Conservatives do not believe in shades of gray, and that is where I take issue. Life is full of nuance, there is more to life than I am right and you are wrong. If the policies that you believe really end the suffering that I see everyday, I will champion them, until then I will fight for those who cannot.

  15. Thank you, Michelle, for letting me speak my mind freely on your blog. I think that since my comments have prompted rather longish debate, that in fairness to you as the author of the blog that I should probably present the longer versions of my views at my own blog. But when I get some time, I’d like to read around on your blog to see the range of topics.

    I like your open-minded approach to hearing different sides and believe that its through openness like yours that the country will take a less divisive direction in the future. People need to let go of the eternal tit for tat thing and seek the common ground.

    Meanwhile, to Allan, you need to reread my post. When you reply “Conservatives do not believe in shades of gray, and that is where I take issue. Life is full of nuance, there is more to life than I am right and you are wrong, ” you are completely misreading my comment and indulging your own bias.

    I was saying: life is full of nuance and the “us versus them” take on life is limiting. Since I already said it once, there’s no point in being repetitious. You took an ironical statement I made and read it literally BECAUSE of what you already believe. You are indulging the very thing you claim to resist. Your stereotypes serve your needs and your hanging on to them.

    I DO think it matters where you live. I live in a black neighborhood. All my experiences of black culture are real. Black people are not abstractions to me: they’re my neighbors. And they do not share the white idea of guilt about money. I know plenty of black people who would love to be “rich” and are not interested in being the Democratic party’s poster group for endless victimhood.

    Obama got 90% of the black vote as the “first” black president. But the Democratic party cannot count on the black vote forever because black people have their own aspirations. Trying to keep racism alive so that Dems can have a “victim” to protect isn’t going to cut it. Both parties are going to have to earn the black vote (if there even continues to be such a thing) in the future, and nobody is going to be able to just take it for granted anymore.

    How do I know? Because I just look at my neighbors. Maybe you “want to fight for them,” but I think they’re plenty happy “to fight for themselves thank you.” They don’t need your help because they can take care of themselves.
    Maybe this imaginary patronage of yours serves your needs more than theirs.

    Best wishes,

    Ann’s New Friend

  16. ANF,
    I’m sure anger is part of her shtick & marketing, but sorry, I can’t get by her tone and nature thus have difficulty giving her any credibility … so I’ll admit my bias.

    In terms of media bias … be careful with that one … Fox News isn’t biased? Rush isn’t biased? … sorry to bust your bubble on this, but all media is biased … and what “listeners” deterimine as bias is in relationship to the biases they hold themselves … such as what I admitted about myself in the first paragraph.

  17. afrankangle,

    I agree that anger is part of Coulter’s shtick. But she feels genuine anger, too, I think.

    The anger doesn’t (usually) bother me (she’s less angry in print) though perhaps because I view it differently. I see it as rather like the pamphlet wars of the 17th century or 18th century satire (pretty biting stuff).

    Okay, bias mea culpas. I guess I have a harder time with left-wing anger — but then it’s aimed at me!! However, sometimes I look at some of the better left-wing satirists like Jon Stewart and it’s fantastic! I fold over laughing like everybody else.

    Meanwhile, you haven’t busted my bubble. I completely agree that all the media is biased now. Of course “to err is human,” and some bias has always existed. But I think that network news used to be much more objective — news people aspired to an ideal of objectivity once.

    “Who, what, where, when, why, how” and “just the facts, ma’am.” They’ve stopped aspiring to that ideal. Some of them no longer believe such an ideal exists.

    Coulter fills a vacuum. In the presence of the news media of old, Coulter would have had to tone it down. In some ways the abandonment of objectivity is what created the space that the Coulters and Frankens fill.



    You commented, “I guess I have a harder time with left-wing anger — but then it’s aimed at me!! ”

    I’ve read over all comments regarding this post and there is nothing I saw that was aimed at you personally. What was addressed was content of comments…not personal attack. I don’t allow personal attacks on my site.



  18. Michelle,

    Your concern is very sweet, but I wasn’t referring to your site — your site is great. I meant in the culture. And especially where I live — I’m a Red girl in a Blue state.

    I’ve been at kids’ birthday parties where all the talk was about “the stupid Republicans.” It grates on the nerves after a while.


  19. I’ve always been surprised that Ann has been allowed to get so far. She is not talented or very smart. Why has she been allowed to wear a media crown? Is she related to someone? Was a favor owed to her family? I’m missing that bit of information that tells the real reason Ann has center stage even though she seems a bit simple.


    I agree with you. However, I must admit to me, personally, she comes across as a “school yard bully” type person. The only thing protecting her (it seems) is “freedom of speech”. If she acted like this on a real school yard…she’d have her “you know what” handed to her in a heartbeat for being so foul with her mouth, attitude and lack of respect for others.

    She’s the “QueenBee” type…and we’ve known this about her from the beginning. If you’ve read through the comments on this post you’ll see she has a “New Friend”.



  20. Sorry Michelle, but I couldn’t help laughing when I read the comments by ANF. Good grief! Does this person know how ridiculous they sound? How can anyone defend the indefensible. I even went to the ANF site. You should suggest that person take a history lesson rather than spew out all the RNC rhetoric from years past.

    Are you going to do another post on Richistan?


    Thanks for taking the time to not only read this post but for reading the comments, too. Yes, I plan on doing another post on “Richistan”…but am not sure when it will be completed. I’ve got several other posts on the ‘backburner’ as well.


  21. Once again, I love this blog. It is so thought out and it says everything that most people are afraid of saying. Its been a while. I miss my friend 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


%d bloggers like this: