Why Must I Be A Blogging Ethicist In Ethics Zugzwang?

I was going to sing it, but it doesn’t fit the music…

Here is my problem…

Describing the ugly developments arising out of the Democratic Soviet-style show trial aimed at neutralizing Donald Trump by criminalizing his post election excesses, and, if possible, intimidating and harassing his supporters past and present, esteemed former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes in part,

So what’s going on here? [Hey! Maybe McCarthy reads Ethics Alarms!]ethics z

For all its posturing as a rule-of-law pillar, the Biden Justice Department, like the Biden administration broadly, is cowed by the Democrats’ hard-left base — the same radicals who snapped their fingers and had Attorney General Merrick Garland ordering the FBI to investigate parents who dared protest against woke-progressivism in America’s schools. The Democratic base’s most cherished desire is the prosecution of Donald Trump and those who collaborated in his quest to retain power. Most of the country isn’t watching the slick made-for-TV docudrama being presented by the Jan. 6 committee (whose “hearings” have no cross-examination or perspectives that vary from anti-Trump obsession), but the Democratic base is watching intently….Garland, a distinguished federal appellate judge for more than two decades before becoming AG, must be torn…

Obviously, the riot was a disgrace. Unfortunately, it has also become DOJ’s prism for evaluating both forcible attacks and nonviolent legal brainstorming. Garland must know the two must be separated.

Anyone who was willfully complicit in the use of force at the Capitol — who intended a lethal riot to happen and abetted it — should be prosecuted. But frivolous legal theories are not crimes…Alas, the Democratic base wants to criminalize them. So the Justice Department is panicking. Garland knows that prosecuting Trump and such underlings as [Trump lawyers] Eastman and Clark on flimsy grounds would rip the country apart. He’s also worried, however, that Biden’s left flank is poised for mutiny if there is no indictment…The problem for Garland is that such stunts just whet the left’s appetite….

McCarthy’s piece is primarily focused on the DOJ’s over-the-top treatment of lawyers John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark,  two of the main legal architects of President Trump’s crack-brained plan to legally delay the official declaration that Joe Biden had been elected for long enough to prove the election results were illegitimate. But it applies as well to the recent announcement that Garland is investigating possible criminal charges against their client. Prosecutors are not supposed to file charges on “flimsy grounds,” and that’s a generous description of what the current rigged, unethical and possibly unconstitutional House show trial has produced after 18 months of such unpersuasive evidence as Cassidy Hutchinson’s dubious testimony. Nor is it ethical for prosecutors to focus on “getting” a target and to keep digging and investigating until they find something, though this has been the strategy of House Democrats for more than five years.

So, stipulated: a criminal change against Donald Trump would be unethical. It would represent one more step toward in the criminalizing of politics. It would divide the nation even more irreparably than it is divided already. Far from being an effort to “save democracy,” as the Left’s upside-down cover story claims, it would present a DEFCON 1 Level threat to democracy, as the “resistance/Democrats/mainstream media effort to undermine Trump since his election have pinged all the other levels.

And yet: part of me, a substantial part, is rooting for Garland to charge Trump, as unethical as it would be.

Doing so would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the Democrats have become in a blaze the truth for all to see (conceding that there are a disturbing number of Americans who would either refuse to see it or would welcome a far-left virtual dictatorship—you know, to save the planet from climate change, and ensure men could become women over night.)

Almost as crucially for the long-term health of the United States, a prosecution, even a wrongful one, would almost certainly stop Donald Trump from running for President against whatever wildly incompetent and untrustworthy candidate the Democrats end up with. Trump was not an unsuccessful or ineffective President until the pandemic games wrecked the end of his term, nor was he solely responsible for the carnage the deranged reaction to his leadership wreaked on the culture and the nation. However, his irresponsible reaction to his 2020 election loss, as unfair as that election was, demonstrated beyond all question that he cannot be trusted, and with vengeance on his mind, he really can’t be trusted. The United States can not take another Trump term. I am certain of it.

Sure, many things might end the threat by 2024: Trump’s age, his health, Gov. De Santis. I don’t feel like it is wise or responsible to take any chances, though, when the stakes are so high. Not stopping Trump from running is unethical, but the only way to stop him from running with any certainty is the Democrats’ unethical witch trial. Either way, ethics loses.

It’s ethics zugzwang.

Where’s the Kobayashi Maru when you need it?

 

 

29 thoughts on “Why Must I Be A Blogging Ethicist In Ethics Zugzwang?

  1. Where’s the Kobayashi Maru when you need it?

    Are you suggesting the only way to stop this is to cheat?kidding… kind of…

  2. So, all the Dems have to do now and in the future is throw a years’ long shit fit via whatever means are necessary whenever a Republican wins a Presidential election, and the election will be undone?

  3. McCarthy is being far too easy on Garland, who has shown his colors as a gutless ideologue at almost every turn. One recent example is his failure to enforce federal law regarding protesters trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices. He’s said local law enforcement should handle it, though the Feds have worked against state and local authorities enforcing immigration laws when they (Feds) fail to. It wouldn’t be surprising at all if he tries to cobble together some way to charge Trump if he can figure out how to protect himself from the backdraft. He’s already hinted that the idea isn’t off the table.

  4. Let me see if I have this right. You would be ok with an unethical trial to prevent a candidate that you do not care for from running. Ok, but where was that sentiment when we could have been investigating and prosecuting Biden and his bagman son? There is no doubt that you can argue that reelecting Trump would be a danger but that is what campaigns are supposed to do. There is a time and place for making objections. Ironically, the time and place for making Constitutional objections to the electors is on or before January 6th. Trump had as much of a right to protest the electors as did Boxer, Raskin, Thompson and others in prior elections.

    So what if Trump runs and even wins. I hope he does not, but that is irrelevant. At issue is the perception that elections are fair and according to the law. If you want to see every president indicted for something during their first term prosecuting Trump will ensure that it will happen because people on both sides of the aisle will clamor for “justice”. Nothing Trump could do if reelected could do as much destruction unless he proceeded to turn the DOJ on his adversaries like the current administration is doing to him. To convict him of planning to do so before he even runs is no better than any other pre-crime conviction and punishment.

    Prosecuting Trump will result in 50% of the electorate believing the process is being manipulated by powerful ruling elite and our representative democracy has been turned from a republic of sovereign states into a feudal system where we are merely serfs subject to the whims of our lords and masters whose power is maintained through keeping the public ignorant through obfuscation and mendacity.

    No one needed to be told by any politician or lawyer that the 2020 election could not pass the smell test in crucial states. Many of the anomalies seemed just way too convenient and that every shift in the count after an anomaly went Biden’s way. It struck many of us who watched the PA Supreme Court allow the executive branch to make unilateral changes to election law in violation of the PA Constitution as prima facie evidence that things were not on the up and up. We wondered why the Republican legislature failed to assert its rights in the matter.

    If Trump runs and wins it is because enough people voted in enough states to put him over the top. That is how the process works. Short circuiting it via a show trial makes us no better than the governments we claim are our adversaries. Those who want to hedge their political bets by using the system to prosecute unfavored candidates will find a number of countries around the world to their liking; some even eliminate the competition permanently. Prosecuting anyone to prevent them from running is unethical and destroys trust in the process. If he is prosecuted, I hope Trump fights to win. I expect the discovery phase to illuminate the corruption in the DOJ.

    I personally believe that Garland and others in this administration have reinforced the idea that we have a two-tiered justice system in which criminal acts perpetrated by the left are not prosecuted and those actually charged are released with no bail while moderates who they can label terrorists are not just prosecuted to the nth degree but denied bail and left to languish in the DC prison. Exculpatory data is routinely withheld from the public and Judges like Emmit Sullivan see themselves as judge, jury and executioner of defendants who have not been convicted of anything. I would like to see both Garland and Sullivan impeached but not if it means violating their rights as citizens.

    Not stopping Trump from running is not unethical. Denying the electorate their choice is what is unethical. No single citizen’s opinion is worth more than another’s. I have to ask, why are so many so scared of Trump when even Joe Biden beat him? Biden was rarely on the stump, yet he won. Amazing isn’t it? Why are so many are bound and determined to crucify the second president in my lifetime that actually honored the commitments he made on the campaign trail. Is it because he got results and that would suggest that future promises by others would need to be fulfilled? The very fact that so many fear Trump’s candidacy suggests two things: some of Trumps electoral claims could be true and/or that a relatively small but well-resourced group do not want the electorate to have their say in the matter and will lie, cheat, steal and do and say whatever is necessary to ensure that he is not successful. That should scare the shit out of every citizen

      • As for the rest:

        “You would be ok with an unethical trial to prevent a candidate that you do not care for from running.”
        It has nothing to do with what I ‘care for.” It has to do with what I know. Trump is poison to politics, society, comity and even peace. He brings out the worst in both parties, most of the public and the media. He’s unique.

        Ok, but where was that sentiment when we could have been investigating and prosecuting Biden and his bagman son?

        I don’t see how that’s relevant.

        There is no doubt that you can argue that reelecting Trump would be a danger but that is what campaigns are supposed to do.

        No, campaigns are supposed to be held between qualified and responsible candidates who both would be, at very least, safe for the nation. There is a time and place for making objections.

        Trump had as much of a right to protest the electors as did Boxer, Raskin, Thompson and others in prior elections.

        It’s not a matter of “right.” It’s a matter of responsible leadership and abuse of position. A President personally opposing the results of his defeat is dangerous, as Trump’s conduct proved. It should legally disqualify him, but ethically, it sure does.

        At issue is the perception that elections are fair and according to the law.

        No, that has nothing to do with the post. At issue is a dangerously divisive and reckless individual whose existence on the political scene endangers the Republic, not because of what he might do necessarily, but because what he moves others to do.

        “If you want to see every president indicted for something during their first term prosecuting Trump will ensure that it will happen because people on both sides of the aisle will clamor for “justice”.

        I think this is likely anyway, thanks to the Democrats.

        Nothing Trump could do if reelected could do as much destruction unless he proceeded to turn the DOJ on his adversaries like the current administration is doing to him.

        Which is exactly what he will try to do. I’ll bet the farm.

        To convict him of planning to do so before he even runs is no better than any other pre-crime conviction and punishment.

        I’m not convicting him, I’m connecting the dots. And he can’t be convicted in a trial—cannot happen. The indictment alone, which would be unethical, would just stop him from being nominated.

        Prosecuting Trump will result in 50% of the electorate believing the process is being manipulated by powerful ruling elite and our representative democracy has been turned from a republic of sovereign states into a feudal system where we are merely serfs subject to the whims of our lords and masters whose power is maintained through keeping the public ignorant through obfuscation and mendacity.

        That’s what the Democrats have created. Might as well let the public know. And more than 50% would oppose it.

        No one needed to be told by any politician or lawyer that the 2020 election could not pass the smell test in crucial states. Many of the anomalies seemed just way too convenient and that every shift in the count after an anomaly went Biden’s way. It struck many of us who watched the PA Supreme Court allow the executive branch to make unilateral changes to election law in violation of the PA Constitution as prima facie evidence that things were not on the up and up. We wondered why the Republican legislature failed to assert its rights in the matter.

        As I have said, it was a fete accompli. The GOP was asleep at the gate, and there was no undoing the scheme. So you learn, take responsibility and do better next time. The Butterfly Ballots lost Al Gore the election, and the Democrats weakened the nation by not taking their medicine.

        If Trump runs and wins it is because enough people voted in enough states to put him over the top.

        Yes, yes, and that’s not the point. If you want the country to fall apart, that’s how you get it. It will be a disaster if he wins, and a disaster if the Democrats don’t get crushed like they deserve. The only way to avoid both disasters is to not have Trump run.

        Short circuiting it via a show trial makes us no better than the governments we claim are our adversaries.

        I said it was unethical.

        If he is prosecuted, I hope Trump fights to win. I expect the discovery phase to illuminate the corruption in the DOJ.

        Of course he’ll win, of course he’ll fight. and of course he’ll be muddied up. It’s mutually assured destruction. It’s been headed that way all along.

        I personally believe that Garland and others in this administration have reinforced the idea that we have a two-tiered justice system in which criminal acts perpetrated by the left are not prosecuted and those actually charged are released with no bail while moderates who they can label terrorists are not just prosecuted to the nth degree but denied bail and left to languish in the DC prison.

        Sure, by now that’s obvious. But irrelevant to the post.

        Not stopping Trump from running is not unethical.

        It’s reckless and dangerous, as well as incompetent. That’s unethical. Letting Biden of Kamala run is also unethical.

        Denying the electorate their choice is what is unethical.

        Come on. You know there is no right to have the public’s favorite fool run for President. The job of the system is to find good candidates who will lead competently and responsibly, not whoever might be popular. That’s how you get Hershel Walker and Cori Bush.

        I have to ask, why are so many so scared of Trump when even Joe Biden beat him? Biden was rarely on the stump, yet he won. Amazing isn’t it?

        There was an artificial virtual depression created by the pandemic and lockdown. It’s amazing he came as close as he did.

        Why are so many are bound and determined to crucify the second president in my lifetime that actually honored the commitments he made on the campaign trail.

        Because he did it while acting and talking like the asshole he is, of course. Being a leader is about character as much as results. A President represents the nation and the public. An asshole President makes every American seem like an asshole. CEO ‘s can be assholes in public, if the company succeeds. Presidents can’t. This is US Presidency 101. Trump doesn’t get it, and never will.

        • One more thing: the key concept here is disaster. I am absolutely opposed to torture on ethical grounds, but if that nuclear bomb was ticking and torture was the last chance to locate it, torture it is. And if you haven’t guess, if both ends of my ethics zugzwang met in an election, yes, I’d have to vote for Trump.

        • Jack, I derived the notion that it was the preferred outcome from the following:

          “It has nothing to do with what I ‘care for.” It has to do with what I know. Trump is.
          Sure, many things might end the threat by 2024: Trump’s age, his health, Gov. De Santis. I don’t feel like it is wise or responsible to take any chances, though, when the stakes are so high.”

          You said something similar way back before he was elected.

          Point two: the sentiment is relevant when we fail to hold all sides up to the same bar. No one ever stated that Biden was poison to “politics, society, comity and even peace.” Yet Biden went around talking about beating Trump up or calling voters names when he was challenged. We knew Biden was a pathological liar among his many faults and we knew he was very cozy with our adversaries. I know in law that the guilt of others for doing the same things is irrelevant, but they should not be in ethics. How can one determine what is right and what is wrong when one side gets a pass, but the other is held to some higher standard?

          You said, “No, campaigns are supposed to be held between qualified and responsible candidates who both would be, at very least, safe for the nation.” The whole point of elections is to allow the citizens to decide who is the most qualified and responsible candidate. Secondly, define “safe”. Does safe mean promoting anti-police rhetoric and higher violent crime? Does it mean price level stability and avoidance of war? Does safe mean unsecure borders in which people and drugs flow with relative impunity? I am not advocating for Trump or anyone else with his personality to run I simply believe that the game plan from the beginning was to undermine the elected president and create the narrative that he is divisive; arrogant and vulgar yes but divisiveness is hardly clear unless you simply rely on claims by his opposition. I claim that Obama and Biden are highly divisive and helped promote a feeling of national insecurity but that is not how the media ever portrays them.

          We use political parties and conventions to separate the wheat from the chaff but ultimately it is the people that make these decisions and not some group of decision makers who decide what is best for us. Political parties do not exist as king makers they are merely entities used to focus a collective voice. Absent any voters these parties do not exist. If we are to lament the choices made by the citizens, we must focus our attention to the electorate and not the candidate.

          “I’m not convicting him; I’m connecting the dots. And he can’t be convicted in a trial—cannot happen. The indictment alone, which would be unethical, would just stop him from being nominated.” I see this as a golden rule violation. Using indictments to stop a political candidate is exactly the behavior used by despots.

          “It’s not a matter of “right.” It’s a matter of responsible leadership and abuse of position. A President personally opposing the results of his defeat is dangerous, as Trump’s conduct proved. It should legally disqualify him, but ethically, it sure does.”

          I have to assume the above reference to “danger” relates to the events of January 6. Trump did in fact plan and execute a peaceful transfer power internally. That too was Trump’s conduct, but we fail to let it reach the public consciousness. Yes, he also held rallies and claimed the election was rigged but his opposition to his defeat did not create the danger. Once again, we hold Trump’s words to be inflammatory while his predecessor’s words were never associated with fomenting riots across the nation. The idiots who rioted at the Capitol learned that pushing, shoving and breaking things was deemed to be peaceful protests over the prior four years. What they did not learn was that the real danger lies with the DOJ when it is being used to maintain political power and suppress political opposition. That is what we should be discussing when we discuss political danger.

          I said: Denying the electorate their choice is what is unethical.

          Your response: “Come on. You know there is no right to have the public’s favorite fool run for President.”

          Actually, it is no matter how foolish it may be. Otherwise, there is no reason to have elections. The system is comprised of the electorate. If the goal is to have back-room power brokers decide who shall be the preferred candidate that effectively locks out every other person who might challenge the power brokers, then let’s say so and stop pretending that elections are fair and square. Again, if we are to lament the foolish choices, we must chastise the foolhardy and not the fool.

          I asked why are so many so scared of Trump when even Joe Biden beat him? Biden was rarely on the stump, yet he won, and you said “There was an artificial virtual depression created by the pandemic and lockdown. It’s amazing he came as close as he did.”

          That has nothing to do with why they are afraid of him now. They are afraid because he represents a challenger who does not go along to get along. That threatens the status quo and the money and power they lust for. There is a reason why the four counties surrounding DC are the richest in the country and it does not come from value added production.

          I asked why many are so bound and determined to crucify the second president in my lifetime that actually honored the commitments he made on the campaign trail. To which you replied, “Because he did it while acting and talking like the asshole he is, of course. Being a leader is about character as much as results”.

          Patton was an asshole as well as was Kennedy, Johnson, FDR and many others. To believe that this was solely about his demeanor and vulgar comments seems way too simplistic. Trump’s character or caricature was well defined prior to the 2016 election. Nothing changed. The opinions you have today are the same ones you had then which should be respected. I want to know why the opposition wants to keep pursuing criminality with him. The objective to destroy Trump began when he was officially nominated. You once had hoped he (Trump) would grow into the type of person necessary for the job. The question remains was he ever given the chance and were all the “good” people who could have helped him intimidated to such a degree by the elite that he had to accomplish what he could with AA players? Trump derangement syndrome, if this successful, will morph into some other derangement syndrome with a different candidate. Personalize, isolate, and deny the truth will become the go to strategy of those wanting to end the republic. That is the real danger. My goal is to put up whatever challenges I can to them.

          • “I have to assume the above reference to “danger” relates to the events of January 6.”

            No, the danger is what Trump’s reaction to his loss tells us about his trustworthiness, ethics alarms and judgment. I found it amazing that Trump managed to almost to the finish line without confirming my long-time assessment of what he was capable of. That was not “planning an insurrection,” but throwing a tantrum, ignoring the requirements of his position, and ignoring the obvious danger of proclaiming that the election was stolen—literally accusing Democrats and Biden of a government takeover—without hard evidence or consideration of the possible consequences of a President doing that. It was childish, it was destructive, it was futile, it was stupid. All the credibility he had built up with 4 mostly tolerable years in office was wiped out in an instant. Not because he planned an “insurrection.” Because he showed that he had learned nothing.

            • It waa payback for the whole “Russians Stole the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign, a campaign that involved using the Justice Department and even lying to the courts.

              You wrote thst Trump would seek vengeance. I would welcome vengeance. I would welcome turning the already-politicized FBI and Justice Department against this who said that Russia stole the election.

              That alone is worth re-electing him.

        • You could also use the analogy that chemotherapy which are poisons are needed to destroy cancer. Sometimes the illness requires strong medicine.

          I would love to be in a world where our leadership practiced Washington’s rules of behavior but to get there we need a more civil society. We have been assuming or at least holding Trump accountable for our own lack of decorum but he is just mirroring the modern society. Even at a fundraiser ball game a member of Congress trotted out and flipped off the other side. Before we can demand others act civilly we must first demand it of ourselves. If an uncivil society elects an uncivil candidate then the onus is on the society not the candidate. That was primarily my initial point.

  5. Although I self-identify as a political conservative, in many ways I am convinced our political system is past being “conserved,” (thanks, everybody in Congress since 1930) and really needs to be “restored.” My fondest dream is that Trump decides not to run, and the Republicans have the good sense and courage (I know, Republicans) to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates who will embrace and expand upon Trump’s policies while avoiding sideshow of the endless petty retorts and mean tweets, etc. If Trump runs, I hope he is subject to a rigorous primary process that makes him earn the nomination rather than being coronated.
    I know that the ruling elite of both parties have exhausted the patience of far more than 50% of the average Americans that I know. We are darned sick and tired of most all Democrats and those Republicans who might as well be Democrats, who will campaign as conservatives and then go to DC and fall right in line with the ruling caste. We were mad enough in 2016 that we elected Donald Trump as President, what more proof do they need?
    We need a President who will be send a clear message that federal executive overreach into the business of the states and the lives of private citizens is no longer the policy of the executive branch. the new President must be ruthless in cleaning house among the federal civil service “supergrades” who run the deep state. The BATFE needs to be abolished and its duties transferred to an overhauled FBI, reminded of their oath to defend the Constitution. The president should ask for the resignations of hundreds if not thousands of incompetent and/or corrupted federal employees, and fire most of them if they refused to go. They want to sue? Have at it! There are plenty of lawyers on staff to handle those lawsuits and at the very least keep them tied up in court for years. The president should have a big stack of executive orders waiting on the Resolute desk, to be signed immediately after the inauguration, rolling back all the actions of the Obama and Biden administrations that can be undone by executive order. Notice should be sent to Congress that it’s time for them to legislate and not depend on executive actions and court decisions to do their work for them. Congress needs to roll back all gun control legislation, all the way back to and including the National Firearms Act of 1934. Immigration laws must be enforced, and our borders strengthened. The massive rise in the national debt must be stopped and the painful process of lowering it begun. This would all be so much easier if I were King, but that brings up one of my nightmares: the further deterioration of our political / economic system to the point that a real dictator arises to save us all. That never ends well.

    • Well said!

      I would like someone who can keep the promises that he made during his (or her, damnit) campaign. But I also want a president who is not Trump with that kind of character and personality.

      Maybe it is not possible. But we got the first half of that with Trump during his first (and hopefully only) term. Is Desantis that person? Don’t know, but I feel he would crush Biden. Is Noem that person? Is Hailey? There are more possibilities.

      We have options that are not octogenarians. We need to exercise one of them.

    • Amen to all of that!
      At the least, on the NFA, there really does need to be a case that revisits other points in U.S. v Miller. It was the sort of trial that wouldn’t even be entertained these days (unless you’re democrats in charge of the House), and among it’s several flaws are determinations made using actual errors of fact, glossed over by the court noting they were “not aware of” certain things, like the use of short-barreled shotguns and full-auto rifles by the U.S. military.

    • OB
      Once again Anton is spot on. His analysis and expectations are scary as hell. One of the reasons I often appear as a Trump supporter is that I see the danger of allowing the entrenched factions manipulate processes far more of a serious threat to the republic than Trump’s behavior and general unwillingness to accept the fact that the opposition outmaneuvered him in the courts to protect their power.

  6. “Each night I pray
    As my poor head explodes again with a bang
    Why must I be
    A blogging ethicist in Ethics zugzwang”

    It works if you stress the words in the right spots. And, of course you have to cobble a reasonable extension of the tune. If you don’t care about the beat matching in the 2nd and 4th lines, you can drop “poor” and/or “again” & it may sound better.

    In any case, if you don’t like it, just remember you get what you pay for.

      • Here you go!

        When I see ethics conflicts
        It almost breaks my heart
        Because I’m so afraid
        My brain will come apart

        Each night I wake
        To a loud ethics bell;
        Why must I be
        An ethicist in Zugzwang Hell?

        When systems are agreeing
        Hurray for Kant and Mill!
        But it’s short-lived well-being
        Next day they fight to kill

        That’s when I stand
        On the corner and yell,
        “Why must I be
        An ethicist in Zugzwang Hell?”

        I must defend
        Somebody like Trump
        Though I don’t have a choice
        I’m looking like a chump!

        Well, if you want to make me nauseous
        Just ask me if I know
        How a voter can be cautious
        Choosing Donald over Joe.

        This hurts my pride
        And my conscience as well…
        Why must I be
        An ethicist in Zugzwang Hell?

        Why must I be
        An ethicist in Zugzwang Hell?

        Why must I be
        An ethicist in Zugzwang Hell?

        I love Dion. Wildly under-appreciated; one of the greats.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.