The Attorney General’s “Island In The Pacific” Gaffe

I guess we’re going to have to get used to this sequence over the next 4-8 years (yes, 8: at the rate the Democrats are disgracing themselves, President Trump may stick around):

1) President Trump and/or one of his surrogates, spokespersons or appointees make a carelessly worded statement

2) Democrats, activists and the news media intentionally, wilfully and maliciously interpret it in the worst way possible under the convetions of the English language

3) They widely represent the statement to the public as expressing malign thoughts intent and principles

4) The Trump-related speaker, being rhetorically-challenged to begin with, fails to clarify the confusion and makes himself or herself look worse the more he tries.

5) Nobody, almost literally nobody, bothers to examine the statement from an objective point of view.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last week, referring to the Hawaii -chambered federal judge Derrick K. Watson, who last month blocked Trump’s revised temporary halt on travel from sslected terrorist-rich Muslim countries just before it was to go into effect,

“I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

It was an off-hand remark on conservative talk show host Mark Levin’s radio program, but it immediately provoked ridicule and attack. Sessions didn’t know Hawaii was a state. Sessions doesn’t respect Hawaii.  President Trump doesn’t like Hawaii. Just a few minutes ago, I watched ABC’s George Stephanopoulos confront Sessions about the remark. Sessions’ humina humina reply: “Nobody has a sense of humor any more.”

I understood the meaning of Sessions’ statement to Levin the minute I heard it, because I thought the same thing at the time of the judge’s ruling: Hawaii is the weirdest place for Trump’s order to be litigated, since the state  is uniquely insulated from the illegal immigration problems facing the other 49 states, has never had anything close to a terrorism attack, and has a negligible Muslim population. The particular problems that the President’s order purports to address is an abstract one for Hawaiians, more than any other state. Sessions’ comment was rueful, intended as irony (to a friendly interviewer), and none of the vile things it was subsequently accused of being.

Never mind.  The state’s U.S senators, both Democrats, made statements condemning Sessions. The state’s attorney general called the comment a racist “dog whistle,”  and op-ed writers piled on. This was entirely foreseeable before those words came out of the AG’s mouth,  and predictable a second after they did.

Do they really believe what they are saying to denigrate Sessions? Who knows? The Democratic talking point is that Sessions is a racist, based entirely on ambiguous and dubious claims made against him when Reagan was President. Those who believe him a racist—and increasingly most Democrats believe that all non-Democrats are racists—will let their confirmation bias run amuck with everything Sessions says or does. (This is why Ethics Alarms declared him to be a foolish nomination by the President last November, regardless of Sessions’ other qualifications.) Those who don’t, if they are Democratic politicians, will still say he is, because race-baiting is what Democrats do.

The fact that Sessions was making a benign point to Levin didn’t make the comment any less stupid and irresponsible. Anyone connected to the Trump administration knows the Democrats and the news media will interpret any comment in the way that will make it easiest to claim that administration figures are idiots, racists, or ignoramuses. No, they can’t make jokes, they can’t try irony or sarcasm, they must be clear and choose words extremely carefully, assuming that everything will be interpreted a) literally and b)  to further the Democratic narrative that the administration is run by stupid, evil people. If they don’t understand this yet, after Sean Spicer was accused of not knowing who Fredderick Douglas was and Kellyanne Conway was accused of believing that microwave ovens could be turned into surveillance devices, they may not be evil, but they are definitely too careless and inarticulate to operate competently in 2017’s media jungle.

No, Jeff Sessions and his colleagues and boss can NOT speak and act as if the opposition and the news media (I repeat myself) will be fair. They will not get the benefit of the doubt. They will not be assumed to have good will; the opposite is true. If interpreting a metaphorical comment literally will make the Trump administration look bad, then the comment will be interpreted literally. If interpreting a literal statement as “code” will accomplish that goal, then it’s code as far as the news media is concerned. This should have been clear as a vodka on ice for at least a year. Anyone who hasn’t learned it yet really isn’t very bright, at least in political terms. This episode is evidence of a flat learning curve

It is, ultimately, Jeff Sessions’ fault.

[Incidentally, holding Sessions responsible for his and the Trump administration’s mistreatment by partisan critics and a biased news media is exactly like what progressives call “victim-blaming” when their favorite constituencies are involved. So be it. When you know what conduct is going to lead to abuse, you have a responsibility to avoid the conduct, or take other remedial measures to stop the abuse.]

48 Comments

Filed under Government & Politics, Humor and Satire, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement

48 responses to “The Attorney General’s “Island In The Pacific” Gaffe

  1. ”the state is uniquely insulated from the illegal immigration problems facing the other 49 states”

    There’s NOT 57 of ’em?

    • Matthew B

      Well if you’re going down this avenue, Alaska is pretty well isolated too. An illegal traveling to Alaska by land must cross three international borders. Air and see travel is well monitored.

      They’re not as well isolated as Hawaii, but they are close.

      • ”An illegal traveling to Alaska by land must cross three international borders.”

        Howse about an Ice Age inspired land bridge?

        “Three international borders” by land, all illegals come from Mexico?

        • Where DO illegals come from, Paul? Are the majority coming through Mexico, if not ‘from?’

          So What?

          • Slow yer roll there, Big Guy, illegals come from ALL over; Chicago is flooded with them from Eastern Europe, the ME, & beyond.

            I have a cousin-in-law that’s here illegally from Czechoslovakia.

            And if they’re coming “through” Mexico, they’ll breach more than 3 international borders on their way to “The Last Frontier,” which happens to have a fair share of…um…undocumented Canadians, Russians, Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Malays, etc.

            “So what?”

            • Lets look at the majority numbers: depending on your source, between 50% and 59% of illegals come FROM (originate, were born in) Mexico, with an additional 15% to 20% from other Latin American countries. That gives you a blended answer of about 70% coming up through the land options to Alaska. All of Asia yields no more than 10%, Africa somewhat less, while Europe is almost not on the radar.

              I think that qualifies as a ‘most’ in my book, your Czech cousin notwithstanding 🙂

              Still love ya like a brother, Paul

  2. Deery

    I do think Sessions was being sarcastic. I’m sure he is well aware Hawaii is a state. He was just indicating that he doesn’t particularly respect it as a state.

    Hawaii does have plenty of undocumented immigrants, mostly from the Philippines and Japan. They make up about 2% of the Hawaiian population (compared to about 3% on the mainland). They have a small Muslim population, but it is still bigger than Montana’s. And I doubt if a judge from Montana issued the same ruling, the legitimacy would have been questioned. And I do think Hawaii does have some experience with devastating sneak attacks from foreigners killing their people…

    • “He was just indicating that he doesn’t particularly respect it as a state.”

      Of course, that is not what he was indicating, and you are doing exactly what I described as the accepted anti-Trump administration tactic. Hawaii’s illegal immigrant problem is 50% of the mainland—because it is an island.

      • deery

        So only California, Arizona, and Nevada should rule on such matters? Hawaii’s undocumented population is roughly the same as Virginia’s, Alabama’s or Michigan’s. They aren’t an outlier. The island part is irrelevant.

        • I’m not questioning the judge’s propriety in ruling (though it was a biased and incompetent one), nor claiming the Hawaii judges have any less business ruling on national matters than those located anywhere else. Neither was Sessions. I agree with Sessions that its ironic. You are skilled at intentionally misconstruing what should be obvious to make unnecessary points, though.

          • deery

            I just don’t see the irony. It’s only ironic if a person feels Hawaii, “an island in the middle of the Pacific”, has no business ruling on something that “real Americans” should rightly be ruling on.

            • It is ironic in the sense that the state with the smallest stake in the issues involved, and the least interest in illegal immigration, would be the one whose judge is blocking the order. That’s all. It’s not a big deal, or a major point, or even a germane one. Nor is it a slur.

              • deery

                It is ironic in the sense that the state with the smallest stake in the issues involved, and the least interest in illegal immigration, would be the one whose judge is blocking the order.

                But, as noted above, this simply is not true. Hawaii’s stake in the matter is about the same as most other states.

                Session’s statements were an attempt to de-legitimize the ruling, by portraying Hawaii as merely some island in the Pacific, rather than a state with the right to issue an opinion on such matters. But I do agree that it wasn’t that deep. But the implicit assumptions embedded in that statement are there.

                • Rich in CT

                  It would be like a North Dakota judge ruling against some measure meant to stop illegal crossings into Arizona. Ironic. Nothing more.

                  • Chris

                    No, it’s nothing like that. The EO applies to all states, including Hawaii. And it prohibits legal immigration, not illegal immigration.

      • Chris

        Jack, of course referring to the state of Hawaii as “an island in the Pacific” was disrespectful to the state in this context. He wasn’t contributing to a Wikipedia article; he was saying it was “amazing” that a judge in the state should have the power to make this ruling. Translation: “A judge in this state shouldn’t have the power to make this ruling.”

        You’re not truly looking at this objectively, you’re being “Objective Guy.” The guy that says “Why can’t we all just look at this objectively?” You know: Devil’s Advocate. False Balance. Whatever you call it, you’re bending over backwards just as much as you’re accusing Democrats of doing…just in the other direction. You’re ignoring the context of Sessions’ statements, not to mention the context of the Trump team’s entire strategy of appealing to “Real America” (“He won the popular vote if you pretend California isn’t really a state!”), while showing disdain for more coastal areas (“New York values,” TM Sarah Palin).

        • Thanks for making your confirmation bias as clear as crystal. We must take Sessions’ comment as racist and ignorant because everyone knows the Trump team is racist and ignorant. It was a stupid remark precisely because everyone connected to the administration is on notice that this is the jaundiced eye even casual comments will be seen through. As I said.

          • Chris

            At what point did I suggest his comment was “racist?” It was ignorant, for the reasons I explained in my comment, and which you ignored.

  3. Wayne

    Well, a poorly chosen choice of words. I suppose that the justice’s courtroom is probably in Honolulu which is located on the Island of Oahu. It might in Molokai but I kind of doubt it. Another thing for the Democrats to rant about and build political capital.

  4. Sidebar: “This is why Ethics Alarms declared him to be a foolish nomination by the President last November, regardless of Sessions’ other qualifications.”

    What determines when you use “Ethics Alarms” vs “I” or “me”? Does the use of “Ethics Alarms” suggest that the full editorial board consisting of more than one person reached this conclusion, or perhaps a consensus among the publisher and commenters? (I could see the latter.)

    I think the average onlooker would assume that the use of “Ethics Alarms” in this scenario confers a “more than just this author” authority. If that’s not the case, the use of “I” would provide instant clarity with zero confusion.

    • It’s a fair point, and I wrestle with it. The reason I use EA is because the forum/site/blog isn’t “me,” but just one thing I create to serve a purpose. The site is clear that I’m the author, but I prefer the site to to be quoted as the site rather than this being an I,I,I display. The analysis is what is important, not that Jack Marshall made it. I will also say the Post or the Times “said” something, when in fact it is a bylined story.

      Again, it’s a good point, Tim. Still thinking.

      • It’s a tangled question to answer because it relies on what you want Ethics Alarms to be in the future. Is Ethics Alarms supposed to carry on after your death or is it capped to your lifespan and is simply the ethical musings and opinions of Jack Marshall. Of course, you haven’t made any overtures of recruiting (or accepting) any additional authors, so the trajectory looks terminal. I could see Popehat continuing after Ken White, but it does seem to be the “Ken White show” these days.

        The other thing here is that you mentioned that you attribute things to “the post” or “the times” rather than the byline author. I think that might be an area of improvement. There should be clarity in attributing the “meat of the article” to the byline author and the presentation and title to the organization. To the extent you are focusing on “balance” and other macro issues, that should also be to the organization. I think not being clear about “who” leads to grouping and “otherization”. It’s a lazy habit that we in American Culture can’t seem to shake. You are by far less lazy than 95% of our society (and 100% of me) in this regard, but you still fall victim to our shared habit.

        Regardless of whatever decisions you make, I do appreciate your dedication to Ethics Alarms.

        • Ethics Alarms is a resource and a forum, not a platform for me. I have lots of opinions, particularly political and policy ones, that are not relevant here. Thus the implication that this site is “me” is misleading. It is my ethical analysis of many topics, citing other authorities when appropriate. If I had a baseball blog, a theater blog, a history blog and a legal blog, my opinions there might well be at odds with my opinions here.Many positions here are the result of my consultations with other authorities and trusted advisors. I definitely don’t want to suggest that there is a staff—solo practitioners are not permitted to call their firms “X and associates” if there are no associates. But all a reader has to do is click on “About” to avoid that misconception.

          As far as Post articles go, the paper has editors, publishes the articles under the masthead, and implicitly endorses what their agents and employees report. The Post reports what the Post reports. When it’s a feature or an op-ed, that’s different, and the author matters.

          If I can make sure that Ethics Alarms continues, I will. My goal has always been to build institutions, not just structures that are “me.”

          • I nominate Zoltar to continue the EA blog if Jack has an unfortunate encounter with a defective pencil sharpener, or such…

            Does that give him incentive to bump Jack off, or to make sure Jack stays healthy? (“Jack, take time to eat and exercise, you are posting too often -Love, Z”)

            What is the ethical incentive in that case? Discuss

            🙂

            • slickwilly,
              I’m not qualified on multiple levels.

              • You seem to understand the ‘rules’ better than most, and apply them consistently. We all have our burdens to bear in this world for which we feel unprepared, Zoltar, and this just might be yours.

                [takes tongue our of cheek}

                • slickwilly wrote, “You seem to understand the ‘rules’ better than most, and apply them consistently. We all have our burdens to bear in this world for which we feel unprepared, Zoltar, and this just might be yours.”

                  Unprepared? Hahahahahahahahahah…….. Understatement of the day!

                  That’s kinda like saying a Army Staff Sergeant can understand and pass on appropriate orders consistently; therefore, the Staff Sergeant should be a four star General creating orders. There’s a ENORMOUS knowledge base and creative evaluation difference between Jack and I; I’m that SSG not worthy of promotion to GEN.

                  🙂

  5. When I read stories like this my hope goes to zero that those that support the Democratic Party will someday pull their heads outta their asses. Some of these kind of stories drive my hope well into the negative numbers and some lend real credence that many lefties are irretrievably broken from reality and this is more of a permanent trend which leads me to ask; is Liberalism now a mental disease?

  6. Other Bill

    I don’t think these alleged “gaffes” (they really aren’t) have any negative effect on Trump’s supporters or those who wish him well. I do think they idiocy they elicit from the media and Democratic operatives will push a not insignificant number of undecideds away from the Democrats and into the arms of the Trump camp.

  7. The democrats objective is to take everything out of context enough that they shut up the conservatives. Up theirs. It is called bullying and is practiced by sociopaths.

  8. Dwayne N. Zechman

    I’m really confused.

    How is it possible for someone to be in the State of Hawaii and NOT be sitting on an island in the middle of the Pacific???

    Is some portion of the State of Hawaii NOT an island?
    Is some portion of the State of Hawaii NOT in the middle of the Pacific?
    Is there some extremely commonplace method by which someone in the State of Hawaii sits on MORE than one island at the same time?

    There is LITERALLY nothing incorrect about that part of the statement.

    –Dwayne

    • Other Bill

      Exactamundo.

    • Chris

      This comment strikes me as willfully obtuse. Everything I know about context and tone tells me that “an island in the Pacific,” in this case, was being used disparagingly. I find it hard to believe that anyone educated on co text and tone could read it any way other than disparagingly. This is “bias makes you stupid” territory.

  9. Attorney General said, “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

    It should be obvious who this paragraph is directed at. There is nothing in that statement from the Attorney General that reflects disrespect for the State of Hawaii, absolutely nothing; claims stating there is, is evidence of Liberal critical thinking driven by nothing but politics. This kind of ginned up nonsense is nothing but an ad hominem; you people should be ashamed of touting this argument as legitimate.

    If you people are looking for something reasonably legitimate in the statement then focus on, then focus on the word “amazed”; using the word “amazed” in this context shows a lack of understanding of the system and a level of disrespect for the Judge that made the ruling. Attacking the rest of the statement is making you look like foolish partisan hacks; for the sake of intelligent civil discourse people, give up this argument, you’re hyping up ridiculous stuff and performing self-inflicted intellectual slap downs in the process.

    About the use of the word “amazed”; there is no reason that the United States Attorney General should be “amazed” that a Judge within the Judicial Branch of the United States government made a ruling that contradicts someone else’s understanding of the Constitution. It’s irrelevant whether it contradicts his opinion, or the opinion of the President, or the opinion of Joe Blow that’s drunk in the gutter; whether you like the ruling or not, this is exactly how the system works. Personally I think the Attorney General was resorting to hyperbole to voice more of a political statement (which has become all too common over the last few years) as opposed to his disagreement with the core of the ruling based on the law and I think that kind of behavior is unbecoming of a person in the position of the United States Attorney General.

    The Attorney General was wrong for making such a statement. When are these pompous asses in the Trump administration going to rise above the politics, shut their damn mouths and just do their damn jobs. Also; when is the political left going to pull their heads out of their asses, there are more important things to deal with in the United States and the world than ginning up stupid attacks on statements like this. It’s time for both sides to shut the political fuck up and do their damn jobs.

    Zoltar Speaks! has “spoken”.

    • Chris

      Wrong. There is no reason to use the phrase “an island in the Pacific” in this context unless the goal is to minimize the importance and legitimacy of the state. I’m an English teacher; this is a classic example of using understatement in order to diminish the person or place under critique. If this was not the goal, Sessions would have simply said “Hawaii.”

      Contrast the following two sentences:

      I really am amazed that a former community organizer can demand that all Americans buy healthcare or face a penalty.

      I really am amazed that the President of the United States can demand that all Americans buy healthcare or face a penalty.

      Which one connotes more respect for the office in question?

      Try these:

      I really am amazed that a businessman and reality TV star thinks he can ban immigrants from seven countries from coming into this country.

      I really am amazed that the President of the United States thinks he can ban immigrants from seven countries from coming into this country.

      Or this:

      I really am amazed that b>ethics lawyer Jack Marshall doesn’t understand the effect that understatement and tone have on a phrase’s connotative meaning.

      I really am amazed that some blogger doesn’t understand the effect that understatement and tone have on a phrase’s connotative meaning.

      How is it possible that so many people here don’t see the difference between these types of statements?

      • Chris wrote, “I’m an English teacher…”

        There is that trust me rationalization again. I for one don’t give a damn what you say you are, even teachers can allow bias to make them stupid. When you try to support such nonsensical arguments you appear to be an eighth grade student not a teacher.

        Chris wrote, “goal is to minimize the importance and legitimacy of the state”

        You claim to be a teacher and yet you say bias makes you stupid shit like that?

        Please read this as many times as it takes for it to penetrate through your industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders (#Corneilus Gotchberg) allowing the truth to penetrate that thick skull of yours.

        The goal was to minimize the importance and legitimacy of the JUDGE not the state.

        In my book, this statement from the Attorney General ranks up there with that “so-called Judge” insult from back in February which you falsely stated was “deligitimizing a branch of government”. You, and others like you, seem to fall off the deep end of reality and logic trying to gin up anything you can to maximize the levels of hate against all those in the Trump administration.

        You may in fact be a teacher, but I’ve seen my share of teachers that are illogical idiots, you are fitting right in with the idiots. When are you going to learn to keep your bias makes you stupid trap shut?

        P.S. None of your sentence comparisons support your argument; however, they do a nice job in supporting my argument.

        • Chris

          Zoltar, please be more civil.

          The goal was to minimize the importance and legitimacy of the JUDGE not the state.

          And yet he minimized both. He referred to the judge as a judge, but then used the adjective “sitting” (a passive adjective meant to connote laziness or weakness), then described the state as “an island in the Pacific.” That strongly minimizes the state’s importance.

          Again, this is obvious. I mentioned I’m an English teacher because it’s my job to understand these things, but really, anyone can understand connotation, tone, and implications here. You’re choosing not to because of your own bias toward condemning “hysterical liberals” even when we have legitimate points.

          • Chris wrote, “Zoltar, please be more civil.”

            Should I be passing out snowflake trigger warnings to you? You’re showing that bias makes you stupid; am I supposed to not say it’s so to protect your snowflake inner shell? You’re acting like an idiot; am I supposed to not say it’s so to protect your faux intellectual shell? You’re barking up the wrong tree Chris; get a pair.

            Chris wrote, “And yet he minimized both. He referred to the judge as a judge, but then used the adjective “sitting” (a passive adjective meant to connote laziness or weakness), then described the state as “an island in the Pacific.” That strongly minimizes the state’s importance.”

            Have you been drinking excessively today? You’re hopelessly illogical Chris, it’s one nonsense pile of hyperbole after another; please retire from teaching before you screw up the minds of our youth with your “reasoning” skills.

            Chris said, “You’re choosing not to because of your own bias toward condemning “hysterical liberals” even when we have legitimate points.”

            You’re completely full of shit.

            Side Bar: You should reread that sentence a few times out loud, I’m not sure you wrote what you were thinking; and you claim to be an English teacher. Plus; what’s funny is that you just stated that you’re a hysterical liberal.

            You’re point isn’t legitimate, it’s nonsense hyperbole, you’re reading things between the lines that are simply not there. You are hopelessly consumed in trying to support an unsupportable argument, at what point in time do you give up this ridiculous quest?

            Lastly; do you recognize rhetorical bait when you see it?

            • Chris

              Should I be passing out snowflake trigger warnings to you?

              No, you should just try not being an asshole. Since you’re not willing to do that, and are in fact getting needlessly personal, as well as ignoring my actual arguments so that you can spend more time insulting me, I’m not going to engage you on this topic any further. I’ll be glad to engage you on other topics provided you calm down; your reaction here is entirely out of proportion, and I think objective observers can read our comments and come to their own conclusions about who’s being overly sensitive and hysterical.

              • Chris,
                Your point about me being an asshole is valid. Your point about me getting “needlessly personal” is a matter of opinion and mine differs from yours on that point.

                Chris, you’re building arguments on innuendo, assumptions that you that you pluck out from the blank white spaces between the printed text and then you extrapolate that into some really ludicrous stuff; I don’t do that. That’s your failure and I think more than one person around here has mentioned this problem. Shock therapy driving home reality can be brutal right up to the point that the light of full comprehension comes on.

                I’ll repeat my two major points based on the Attorney General’s words, agree or disagree, I don’t give a damn;

                The Attorney General said, “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

                1. There is nothing in that statement from the Attorney General that reflects disrespect for the State of Hawaii, absolutely nothing.

                2. The goal of the Attorney General was to minimize the importance and legitimacy of the JUDGE not the state.

                3. Personally I think the Attorney General was resorting to hyperbole to voice more of a political statement as opposed to his disagreement with the core of the ruling based on the law and I think that kind of behavior is unbecoming of a person in the position of the United States Attorney General.

                4. When are these pompous asses in the Trump administration going to rise above the politics, shut their damn mouths and just do their damn jobs. Also; when is the political left going to pull their heads out of their asses, there are more important things to deal with in the United States and the world than ginning up stupid attacks on statements like this. It’s time for both sides to shut the political fuck up and do their damn jobs.

                5. You’re argument about disrespecting the State of Hawaii isn’t legitimate, it’s nonsense hyperbole, you’re reading things between the lines that are simply not there.

                My last point take it or leave it; you really shouldn’t have replied to my 8:32am comment.

          • I peeled this out separately on purpose.

            Chris wrote, “anyone can understand connotation, tone, and implications here. You’re choosing not to…”

            I did understand “connotation, tone, and implications” and I addressed it; did you fail to read and comprehend my entire 8:32am comment?

          • Dwayne N. Zechman

            “And yet he minimized both. He referred to the judge as a judge, but then used the adjective “sitting” (a passive adjective meant to connote laziness or weakness), then described the state as “an island in the Pacific.” That strongly minimizes the state’s importance.”

            Oh please. Surely you’ve heard the term “sitting judge” and know that it means one who is currently working in the legal system as a judge.

            …as opposed to, for instance, Fox News correspondent Judge Andrew Napolitano.

            –Dwayne

            • Chris

              He did not say “sitting judge,” Dwayne, he said “a judge sitting,” which has an entirely different connotation. There is no way he meant “one who is currently working in the legal system as a judge” in this context.

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