Ron Paul: War on “Fake news” part of a war on free speech


A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties are endangered.

One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.

Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations from distributing factual information regarding a candidate’s positions for several months before an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidate’s views being the campaigns and the media.

Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books, movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stone’s biography of Edward Snowden, since it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing Snowden.

The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on “fake news.” Those leading the war are using a few “viral” Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation — and even outright censorship — of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

Those calling for bans on “fake news” are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned “gatekeeper” (to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

The war on “fake news” has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government’s skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media’s pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

The attempts to ban “fake news”; smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician’s record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech.


pretty good article by ron..

“The war on “fake news” has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government’s skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.”


“Those calling for bans on “fake news” are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned “gatekeeper” (to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.”

double bang!


~ by seeker401 on December 16, 2016.

48 Responses to “Ron Paul: War on “Fake news” part of a war on free speech”

  1. Huge story at the moment. Mainstream is in meltdown over Trump winning and are blaming alternate media. Alex Jones is the main target as he has the biggest alternate media audience. Jones also has interviewed Trump recently. Have a listen to Jones right now on his radio station. Talking about all this now.

  2. Was posted on Drudge..

  3. There is 3. Snopes, ABC news and another. Also, a team of moderators on facebook will review any stories complained about in a ‘dob in’ scheme that all users can use. In other words, scum will scour all alternate news posters on facebook and delete anything that doesnt conform with the mainstream narative.

    • more than that:

      If you would like to become a signatory please register your interest here. If you believe any of these organizations isn’t respecting the code please reach out through this form.

      ABC News (USA) Added Dec. 13th
      Africa Check (South Africa, Senegal and Kenya)
      Agência Lupa (Brazil)
      Agência Pública – Truco (Brazil) Added Sept. 16th
      Aos Fatos (Brazil)
      AP (USA) Added Dec. 15th
      Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Kosovo (Kosovo)
      Climate Feedback (USA) Added Dec. 5th
      Colombiacheck (Colombia) Added Nov. 11th
      Chequeado (Argentina)
      Demagog CZ (Czech Republic)
      Demagog PL (Poland)
      Doğruluk Payı (Turkey)
      El Deber Data (Bolivia)
      El Mercurio El Poligrafo (Chile)
      El Objetivo La Sexta (Spain) (USA)
      FactCheck Georgia (Georgia)
      FactCheck Northern Ireland (UK)
      FactCheck-Ukraine (Ukraine) (India)
      FactsCan (Canada)
      Faktabaari (Finland)
      Full Fact (UK) (Ecuador)
      Internews Kosova (Kosovo)
      Istinomer (Serbia)
      Melu Detektors (Latvia) Added Sept. 26th
      Metamorphosis Foundation (Macedonia)
      Observador (Portugal)
      Ojo Publico (Peru)
      Pagella Politica (Italy)
      Pesa Check (Kenya)
      PolitiFact (USA)
      Snopes (USA)
      South Asia Check (Nepal) (Ireland)
      UY Check (Uruguay)
      Valheenpaljastaja (Finland)
      VERA Files Fact Check (Philippines) Added Sept. 19th
      VoxUkraine (Ukraine)
      The Washington Post Fact Checker (USA)
      Zašto ne Istinomjer (Bosnia & Herzegovina)

  4. Russia seems free of it. Russia, the Free speech capitol of the world!!!

  5. This happened before and went to court.

    Near v. Minnesota (1931):

    Basic Ruling:  Commitment to freedom of the press means that individuals may publish (and other individuals may encounter) ideas that are offensive, malicious, or even wrong. (Civil penalties apply for false statements made knowingly and/or maliciously.) In the “marketplace of ideas,” citizens can choose between news sources, rather than only those sources approved by government.

    [There is no source. This was taught in a classroom and taken from notes.]

    • In the “marketplace of ideas,” citizens can choose between news sources, rather than only those sources approved by government.

    • Near v Minn was/is a landmark Supreme Court case for our rights to free speach still viable and Ron Paul just have a clear clarion call.

      After its ratification and until the early twentieth century, the First Amendment protected citizens from federal government censorship. State governments, on the other hand, routinely censored newspapers. For example, abolitionist newspapers in the South and pro-slavery newspapers in the North prior to the Civil War faced censorship. Regulation of the press by state governments continued until 1931 when the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement of due process to apply the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom to state governments (the doctrine of incorporation) in the case of Near v. Minnesota.

      Minnesota had a law subjecting newspapers to official approval before publication. Publishers had to show “good motives and justifiable ends” for what they were about to print. If they could not, the paper could be censored in advance. Additionally, it was a crime to publish “obscene, lewd, and lascivious” or “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” materials.

      Jay Near published a “scandal sheet” in 1920’s Minneapolis. This paper was devoted to sensational news and “exposé” reports on corruption. Near regularly criticized elected officials and accused them of dishonesty. He asserted that Jews were “practically ruling” the city, that the chief of police was taking bribes, and that the governor was incompetent. Near was eventually stopped from publishing his newspaper in 1925 on the basis of the Minnesota law.

      The Court held that prior restraint on publication (censoring newspapers in advance) in Minnesota was “the essence of censorship” and the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. Even in cases where printed statements could be punished after the fact (libelous statements, for example), neither federal nor state governments could stop the publication of materials in advance. The Court cautioned that prior restraint may be constitutional during wartime: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”

      In a society with a free press, journalists who have the power to shape public opinion may test citizens’ commitment to the First Amendment. A free press puts the responsibility on the citizen to determine what is accurate, what is worth reading, and what is worth watching.

      • This 1931 case also was used in 1971 in connection with the Federal gov’t trying to censor and cover up the Pentagon Papers in the press. This court case was eventually seen to be related to the larger issue of Watergate.

        On the account of this particular ‘-gate’:
        “For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal soon discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.”

  6. More than free speech, it is against the thing the elites hate the most: EXPOSURE of their evil Luciferian satanic ritual abuse of our children…and Taxpayers PAY them to do so~, the horrendous coverup of this cabal worldwide for … eons ! No, the deflection tactics are to shut down the viral information exposing who they are, what they do in the dark, and the goals for all us peasants who pay their taxes all these years so they can continue on, with the foolish masses headed for their hell on earth, loving it until ….they will finally realize too late, what they have done by letting these freakish devils rule over them. ONLY Jesus Saves!

    • Amen to that !

    • Only Jesus Saves!

    • 99% of the people who proclaim the singular path to a nonexistent salvation is through jesus are virtue signalers who are trying to cover up for their own failings.

      it’s is entirely possible to be a 100% good person and not give a damn about ‘jesus.’

      • I would say it this way, but not perfectly of course (I understand the nuisances involved):
        1 – 100% of the people who proclaim…
        2 – it is entirely not possible to be a 100% good person, and some do not give a damn about ‘jesus’

      • Personally I don’t give a damn about being a good person .. ” there is none good, not even one” .. I give a damn about the truth .. I give a damn about the truth I see in the mirror .. I give a damn about being honest with myself .. If you are not prepared to die for what you believe .. then what you believe is not worth living for .. and I needed saving .. and that’s the damn truth!

        ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked’

        • a huge part of christianity is ‘people are bad.’ what’s wrong with saying ‘people are good but they make mistakes?’ 🙂

          • If we could only see ourselves and one another as our Creator sees us. Sometimes I get a glimpse of the finished work and realize how religion has deceived the multitudes, myself included. Do good, get good, do bad, get bad, blah, blah. The new covenant of Christ that I signed onto is one of pure grace, it is finished, it’s a done deal. In fact that covenant was made on my behalf because my Creator knew that no way would/could i ever keep it, lol. I am just the benefactor of the one written in blood, His not mine. Therefore, it is imperative I allow the royal law of love to reign in my heart so when I say I believe and therefore receive this thing called the kingdom, now dwelling on the inside I am not just another hypocrite. Yeah, I really am believing the struggle is all in my head. If I have to do good to be good all by myself, I’m screwedeth, lol.

            As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. (Romans 7:16-17 Forgiveness of sin is so last summer, the law of liberty is having its way, yay.

          • when I hear the term ‘Jesus saves’ I hesitate to join their enthusiasm .. the terms ‘good or bad’ are relative .. at ftm we have the privilege of casting stones at those responsible for the suffering of others .. in comparison I may consider myself a ‘good person’ although one who makes ‘mistakes’ .. if I recognize my ‘mistakes’ I may make an effort to avoid repeating that ‘mistake’ and being a better ‘good person’ .. the problem with ‘mistakes’ is they have ‘unintended consequences’ .. we may change our behavior but we can’t undo the consequences .. the ‘mistakes’ of the fathers are passed on to the children to the second and third generation .. this is evident in abused children who often become abusers themselves .. so whether one believes he is ‘saved’ or ‘good’ is irrelevant .. I believe God is merciful and forgiveness is necessary but the consequences must be dealt with .. if we are willing .. “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

            • A human being fashions his consequences as surely as he fashions his goods or his dwelling his goods or his dwelling. Nothing that he says, thinks or does is without consequences. – Norman Cousins

            • There is no getting away from earthly deeds and their consequences from the low hanging fruits picked. Some believe what the laws of the land dont punish karma will. There has been nothing more gruesome to me to look back on selfish choices made and the trail of destruction that has followed. Once reduced to accepting the blame and not shunning the responsibility to make it right as far as humanly possible did I understand what it is to know grace and forgiveness from above when none is available from my human counterparts. The test now is to extend that to those who will trespass against me….
              Liberty to Love (Galatians 6:1-10)
              Brethren, if any man be fallen by chance into any fault: ye which are spiritual, help to amend him, in the spirit of meekness: considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burden: and so fulfil the law of Christ. If a man seem to himself that he is somewhat when indeed he is nothing, the same deceiveth himself in his imagination. Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in his own self, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. (Galatians 6:1-5 TNT)
              Let him that is taught in the word, minister unto him that teacheth him in all good things. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap. He that soweth in his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption: but he that soweth in the spirit shall, of the spirit reap life everlasting. Let us do good, and let us not faint. For when the time is come we shall reap without weariness. While we have therefore time let us do good unto all men, and specially, unto them which are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:6-10

            • the problem is with the idea that *only* jesus saves.

              this concept alone has caused mass murder, genocide, theft of lands, mass rape (it’s called the missionary position because that’s the rape position), and untold misery for millions and millions of people for hundreds and hundreds of years.

              almost all christians today were either converted through violence or are descended from those who were converted by violence. not exactly what the big J (or is it Y) was speaking about.

              if people find salvation in jesus, great. at a certain point i would wonder why anyone would associated with a concept that has proven to be so horrible for so many people.

              • According to you, ‘a huge part of Christianity is able to say that is bad. You question why it is not wrong to say those people are good but they make mistakes.’

                xxx, “a huge part of christianity is ‘people are bad.’ what’s wrong with saying ‘people are good but they make mistakes?’”

              • I grew up in a religious civil war .. I am intimately familiar with violence .. I have no problem with violence as long as the right people die .. unfortunately it is always the innocent .. All that you say is true because there are those whose nature is to kill, steal and destroy .. the killing will continue as land and resources are purchased with the blood of victims and I will continue to believe in God’s mercy while also believing in His justice and wait for the day of vengeance

              • “If people find salvation in jesus, great. at a certain point i would wonder why anyone would associated with a concept that has proven to be so horrible for so many people.”

                That concept is promoted by hateful, self righteous demoniacs masquerading as followers of the Prince of Shalom, the great I AM who I AM. They are the uncontrolled opposition, pay them no mind. Be assured that thought must have crossed the Big Y’s mind, as he hung naked and bleeding out, on a stake in Golgotha.

                I have neither an axe to grind or a point to prove and it didn’t take the Almighty or anyone to persuade me I missed the mark, I didnt even know there was one. I was reading the Bhagavad Gita,meditating on the eternal OM, smoking pot, snorting organic mesc, depressed as all hell when at 17, I met the Messiah, on my way out a five story window screaming I DON’T BELIEVE IN YOU… but if by chance you exist, heeeelp!

                • ok, but the vast majority of ‘christians’ are those hateful demoniacs. it’s extremely rare to find any that believe in and practice matthew 6:5

                  if there’s 1,000,000 horrible people calling themselves “blisstians” and 1 decent person going “no, no, those people are hateful demoniacs, i’m a real blisstian!” doesnt it seem like everyone could save time and just let the hateful people have the word and move on to calling yourself something that doesnt associate you with humanity’s worst?

                  • Christians are not moralists. They are Christians. There is a difference.

                    Why do these horrible demoniacs matter anyways? If these horrible demoniacs are who you claim that they are, then according to you they are just good people who make mistakes. Now a Christian is able to stand up to this ‘horrible demoniac’ and call him out for who he really is – bad. That much you have already admitted. Then by God that person may possess a godly sorrow and repent to God. Aside from all the just consequences they should have to experience on earth depending on the situation. Yet in the eternal domain Christians have a way out of this mess. They have a good life to look forward to. This gives people like us hope. We want the pain to end, and the false witnessing to end. This hope is not in us, but a hope that is in Christ and the work He continues to do to complete His way. He has given His people much to hope for. A beautiful world to come where there will be no sin, no sickness, no death, no war, pure beauty and joy.

                    A Christian understands that, yes, all people are bad. Instead of just letting them off, and minimizing their ‘terribleness’. This is why a Christian is not a moralist. Moral arguments do not work on a Christian, and moral arguments fail to capture the fuller understanding of who a Christian even is. You could talk about how terrible and demoniac most Christians are. Yet that fails to grasp where a Christians attention, and therefore, life is focused upon by faith. I mean do I really know who you are. Of course not.

                    A Christian has no room to talk, and knows he is a terrible person. So you are not saying anything a Christian may hear any given LORD’s Day. To a Christian that is just sweet music to our ears. You are really only giving me what I desire to hear and not really saying anything that falsifies Christianity. This is why Christianity is not moralism.

                    A Christian knows people hurt each other, and he has hurt others. And will continue to hurt others even though he does not desire to! Anybody that thinks they do not hurt others are liars. A Christian admits their ‘terribleness’. A Christian will and does fail and by a God given faith they have been enabled by God to rest their life upon the only Person who is good our God and Savior Christ Jesus. Only God to all the glory.

                    • “Why do these horrible demoniacs matter anyways?” (not an HRC quote btw)

                      you seem to think that none of the crimes i’ve described actually happened – but they did. then you seem to say it doesn’t matter anyway because you don’t believe in morality – very easy to say when you promote the religion of horrible demoniacs.

                      my girlfriend’s family had all of their lands confiscated because they refused to believe in your god. half of my father’s family was hacked to death by people who insisted your god was better than his god.

                      if you hear that and just shrug and go “oh well, as a christian i don’t believe in morality” then what are you really?

                      “A Christian has no room to talk, and knows he is a terrible person. ”

                      agree with the former. wish the latter were true.

                    • – I never said ‘none of the crimes’ actually happened. In fact you probably could not list enough of them. I know they happened.

                      – I never said it does not matter. In fact you said earlier that they are ‘good people who just make mistakes’. It is the Christian who says they are bad – not good people.

                      – I never said I “don’t believe in morality”. I said Christianity is not moralism. Moralism is a kind of philosophy that differs from existential philosophy. Moralism is a field within the rational philosophies like Aristotle. Christianity is not the philosophy of moralism, and therefore, can not be understood by moral philosophy. The romantic philosophy of Edgar Allan Poe, or the empiricism of John Dewey, can not correctly understand each other philosophically. That does not mean they each do not possess their own way to critique each other. They do. What it does mean is that to try to understand “The Raven” by Dewey’s epistemological concept of “interaction” will cause such a person to fail to intellectually and heartily understand “The Raven” by Poe. Christianity is not a moral philosophy. You can continue to morally rationalize Christianity, but by know means, using that hermeneutic will cause you to fail to understand just what Christianity is. Therefore you will incorrectly critique it, because you failed to understand what ‘it’ is that you are critiquing in the first place. The problem is an ontological problem which gives you an epistemological problem and therefore your hermeneutical method leads to a false assessment. To put it simply you have built a straw man thinking it is the ontological reality when the real Person of Christ is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

                      – In fact it is you I was quoting. Did you forget what you wrote above?

                      xxx, “a huge part of christianity is ‘people are bad.’ what’s wrong with saying ‘people are good but they make mistakes?’”

                      By any charitable reader, it is obvious that my whole assessment of those “horrible demonics” was that they are bad. As I said, you already admitted the fact, correctly, that Christianity is able to say “people are bad”. It was your implication that why can not Christians simply say “people are good but they make mistakes” that I find to wrongly minimize what really happened to your family. I do not know why you like to think people are good when things like that happened to your family. Therefore it is you that I was implying that needs to ask yourself, if you find it in your heart to do so, why does it matter? Why does it matter to you if you think people are good anyways? And they only make mistakes. I think that wrongly minimizes the hurt people actually have experienced.

                  • Absolutely.

                  • Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. So how are we to identify ourselves then? The disciples called each other, “brethren”, “disciples”, “apostles”, “servants”, “believers”, “followers”, “the faithful”, “the elect”, “the called”, and “saints.” We can also identify ourselves as “bondservants” of Christ.

                    Apparently, a bunch of pagans,at,Antioch coined the word christian while mocking apostles.

                    • I believe Christian is an honorable name. Pagans may have first called them Christians at Antioch that is a good, but not necessary interpretation of Acts 11:26. 1 Peter 4:16:

                      “but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.”

                    • Christians or Chrestians?
                      Followers of Christ -or- Good Doers 
                      Herein lies a great truth, or at least the plausibility of one.  There is support for the idea that the original word recorded in Scripture was “chrestian,” not “Christian” as we have previously believed.  This is evidenced in both early Greek and Aramaic which use the more generic term for “good, of high moral character”. 
                      The oldest Greek New Testament – Alexandrinus
                      The Sinaiticus (dated to 330-360AD) always shows XPHCTIAN (chrestian), not XPICTIAN (christian).  Alexandrinus (dated to 400-440AD) appears to be the earliest Greek New Testament to contain XPICTIAN (christian) which is roughly 75 years later.1 Notice the spelling in the following three verses (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16):

                  • Xxx I had to look up Matthew 6:5 you made reference to and in doing so I came across these two verses in that chapter, I thought they spoke volumes.

                    at 6:22

                    “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light.

                    Mat 6:23
                    “But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness

          • xxx asked ‘why?’ This is why:
            “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,
            The whole earth is full of His glory.” (Isaiah 6:6b)

            • i’m sorry, but it’s just a bunch of jew stories.

              • No, I think you meant what you said. No need to be “sorry”. Just by saying “sorry” does not make what you said any better or ‘nice’ – if that is what you were aiming for. Do not think I have not heard it all before. I know you are being honest about what is in your heart as to who Christ is and His work. I would expect nothing less.

                1 Timothy 4:7, “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.”

                good chatting with you. It is always interesting to hear what another person holds near and dear to their heart.

                • no, i’m truly sorry because i do feel compelled to speak truth to those living with delusion, and at the same time i know how people of “faith” react when confronted with it. (no abstractions about what “the truth” is please. murder is murder, genocide is genocide, theft is theft.)

      • Of course there are people who believe they are a good person .. but could they withstand the intense scrutiny we enjoy subjecting others to here ??

      • ‘For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing concealed that will not be known and illuminated.’

      • XXX of course is possible we are Humans 🙂 some Humans have Faith in something more than Themselves 🙂

  7. seek it’s legit….

  8. IFCN George Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Censor ‘Disputed’ Stories

    ” The organization partnered with Facebook to help determine whether a certain story is “disputed” is financed by billionaire George Soros and a slew of other left-wing funders.
    The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with “third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.

    Facebook says that if the “fact checking organizations” determine that a certain story is fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to the Facebook announcement, “there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”

    IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy.”

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: