Hey, This Universal Healthcare Thing is a Big F*ing Deal!

Yes, Mr. Vice-President, it is a big f*ing deal!  Shredding the Constitution always is.  Joe Biden is of course a buffoon, and he might even be slightly crazy.  (Boy-oh-boy, we sure are lucky we didn’t end up with that loose cannon Sarah Palin!)  But every now and then, in his own inimitable way, he says something that is on the mark.  The latest gaffe — dropping the F-bomb on an open microphone during the healthcare bill signing ceremony — being a case in point and, in this writer’s humble opinion, an understatement.  But you probably know my views on the healthcare law by now.  1   For the present discussion, I want to focus on the illustrious Mr. Biden.

As I am sure everyone is well aware, Joe Biden is compulsively prone to making these kinds of wacky remarks, always, it would seem, at the worst possible moments.  He has done so as Vice President, as a candidate for VP, and also over his long career as a United States Senator.  Here is just a sampling of the rich repertoire of Bidenisms:

  •  As the titular head of the White House team that is supposed to keep track of stimulus spending, Biden was on the CBS “Early Show” touting a government-run website that allegedly tracks stimulus money.  When he was asked for the site’s web address, he said: “You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?” he asked an aide standing out of view. “I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m actually embarrassed.”
  • And of course, we all remember his colorful remarks last year about the Swine Flu:  “I would tell members of my family – and I have – I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now.  It’s not that it’s going to Mexico – if you’re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft…. I would not be at this point, if [my family] had another way of transportation, [be] suggesting they ride the subway.” 
  • At a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House, Biden took a moment to honor the memory of the Irish prime minister’s mother—a woman who is still very much alive.  “God rest her soul,” Biden said.  But he quickly corrected himself noting it was the prime minister’s father who had passed: “Wait … your mom’s still, your mom is still alive. It was your Dad (who) passed. God bless her soul. I gotta get this straight.” 
  • Finally, when recently asked to comment on why no one seems to pay attention anymore when he says something off-the-wall, he said, “A couple weeks ago, I insulted this disabled kid and a pregnant lady all in one day, but all anyone wanted to talk about was how President Obama was hating on the Special Olympics.  I’ve gotta figure out ways to elevate my game.”

The temptation is to write off old Joe as the crazy but affable uncle of the Obama administration who they keep locked up in the attic of the White House (or in the cellar, if you prefer) and only let out when they have to—for special ceremonies and such.  And even on these occasions it almost always looks like Obama is actually on the verge of tackling Biden before he blurts out some hellishly embarrassing thing in front of a live microphone.  Though I have to admit that lately it seems the President has resigned himself to the Vice President’s risible verbosity.  I mean, what can he do but laugh it off and hope no one is paying that much attention.  And of course the Government Information Ministry, formerly known as the mainstream media, is more than happy to laugh along with the President over Joe’s gaffes as though it’s all a big joke and we needn’t worry that he’s only a heartbeat away from running the country.

So there is this temptation, encouraged by the media, to say, “Well, it’s just Biden being Biden” and to ignore whatever he has to say.  And make no mistake; a lot of what he does say is indeed rambling nonsense.  But bear in mind, he sits in on all national security briefings and other top level meetings with the President and the Cabinet.  He obviously has the highest level security clearance which gives him access to all sorts of classified information. (I mean, he has to have that right?)  And after all, he is next in line to be President if, God forbid, anything should happen!  So one has to think that he knows about stuff, lots of stuff, and that he has known about it for a long time, going all the way back to the days of the 2008 campaign. 

But therein lies the pickle this administration finds itself in.  Biden is the Vice President.  But he is also Joe Biden.  He is still the big, likeable, garrulous, grinning guy from Scranton, PA who can’t wait to tell everybody what he knows or to blurt out whatever’s on his mind, even if what he knows or what’s on his mind is a big f*ing deal, to put it in the vernacular of the Vice President.  And so, every now and then, chatty Joe blabs about something that he’s not supposed to.  He lets out something that he’s just heard, or read, or been told is a really big secret.  I’m alluding to what Biden said back during the 2008 campaign.  Remember?  It was on the campaign trail and Biden had recently been selected as Barack Obama’s running mate.  In fact, you could say this was one of his first gaffes as a member of “Team Obama.”  He was at a fundraiser in Seattle, surrounded by the party faithful.  He was in his element.  He hadn’t realized that there were any press in the room (not that they make any difference anyhow) until after he had rambled on about some very revealing stuff.  Here are some excerpts: 

“Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy…. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you — not financially to help him — we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right….  Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ … So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us… There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision.’  … I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.” (Emphasis added.)  2

As the then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden also touted his own credentials and said he would add value to the Obama ticket. “I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know,” he said, “so I’m not being falsely humble with you.” 

So what exactly was Joe, the humble foreign policy expert, talking about?  What did the Obama people confide in him was going to happen?  What kind of test?  JFK had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis which brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.  Is that what he meant?  Just what kinds of decisions were going to be coming down that would make folks say “Whoa… I don’t know about that decision!”  Liberals (nervous liberals especially) will conveniently dismiss this as Biden just opening his big mouth.  But I think Biden gave us a brief, rare glimpse into the inner sanctum here.  He opened up a small window into the mind of this administration when it was in its infancy, sensing that victory was at hand and planning about all the fundamentally transforming things they were going to do, both domestically and on the international scene.  And Biden was like a new convert who had just come out of a revival meeting, having heard the true Progressive Gospel for the first time; and he just couldn’t wait to spread the word, to tell everybody what he knows.

While this administration has seen its challenges in the international arena, a catastrophe of the magnitude that Mr. Biden was suggesting has yet to materialize.  There have been no Cuban Missile-size crises or 9-11’s to deal with.  So Biden’s prognostications as to timing have been wrong…  so far.  However, just about every week it seems like there is some new big f*ing deal.  Some new push.  Some new peeling away of the onion.  Some new chipping away at the foundation.  Gradually, the curtain is being pulled back on this President and his administration to reveal the inner-workings of the machine; the levers and pulleys of the mechanism of fundamental transformation.  But none of these things rise to the level of actual crises.  Certainly none have been “generated” by our enemies.  They don’t even come from someplace else in the world.  Rather, they are ginned up right here, at home, by this President and his administration.

For example just this past week, the Obama administration announced a new nuclear policy for the country.  For the first time, we unilaterally and preemptively have said to the world that we are fundamentally altering our policy as to when and against whom we will and will not use our nuclear arsenal.  In particular, the new policy actually allows certain nations to attack us with biological and chemical weapons and we will politely refrain to retaliate with a nuclear weapon.  Without here debating the merits or recklessness of such a decision (i.e., whether or not our existing or potential enemies will be inspired to follow suit or actually emboldened to press an advantage) it is beyond dispute that such a move is unprecedented in the history of American nuclear security policy.  In fact, it is a radical change in that policy.  It is a meddling with something that does not cry out for meddling with, indeed, something that has stood us in good stead for some sixty odd years.  And yet, this decision follows a pattern and formula that has become the hallmark of this administration.  That being: fundamental change, for its own sake.  Fundamental change, based on an intellectual argument.  Fundamental change, whether you like it or not. 

So again, what was Joe Biden talking about?  What kind of long range plans and schemes did the Obama people let him in on (before it dawned on them they were talking to Joe Biden.)  Did he hear something but misinterpret it?  There is certainly a high likelihood of that!  Maybe he got the “test” part right but mixed up the antagonists.  Just who is testing whom here?  Is it this President who, like John Kennedy, is being tested by the world?  Or is it perhaps the other way around?  We could ask Joe Biden, but he’d probably honestly say he doesn’t remember.



Fn. 1: In case you don’t, I expand on why this law is an affront to the U.S. Constitution in several prior posts. To read, start by clicking here:  https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/why-you-don%e2%80%99t-have-a-right-to-healthcare/

Fn. 2: Source: 


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

37 Responses to “Hey, This Universal Healthcare Thing is a Big F*ing Deal!”

  1. Shweta Says:

    I stopped reading when you expressed a thought condoning Sarah Palin’s existence….How…on earth…can you think she has earned a right to utter words into this world?

  2. Shweta Says:

    He drops an F bomb…and you’re offended? Sarah Palin writes notes on her hands to read on national television, is openly racist(but apparently you support that), and just her plain downright retarded thought process(but you are for the Tea Party…so you support retardism)…and you are offended by an F bomb!? Your party doesn’t have a sane leg to stand on.

    • culturecrusader Says:

      Didn’t you know, all of us racists are very sensitive about cuss words. You really need to get to know your racists. As for Sarah Palin, I’m afraid she’s not one. We’ve tried and tried to recruit her, but she refuses to be as intolerant as we are. Based on your own knee-jerk and publicly uttered prejudices, I’m beginning to think we should start recruiting liberals! Interested?

    • maciek Says:

      Don’t sweat this guy, Shweta, he just gets off on pushing your buttons, like his idol Ann Coulter… besides being delusional with some as yet ill-defined conspiracy plot by that closet Communist (or is it Fascist?), Obama. If you get into a discussion with him he’ll just bombard you with a long post that mixes facts with nonsensical conjecture that no one with a job has the time to answer point by point. You’ll never understand or agree with him because he lives in a world where the US is the navel of the world and obviously if the political vision of the administration is different from his own it must be a crypto-assault on what makes America great. Like his view that the US nuclear policy has been a good thing (I imagine because there haven’t been chemical, biological or nuclear attacks) – of course, by looking at the rest of the world one might conclude that a perpetual war-like stance is not necessary to avert such attacks, besides which, as we well know, the last attacks on American soil came with hijacked planes and before that it was… oh yeah, a government-hating American in Oklahoma.

  3. Shweta Says:

    ha, but you got Ann, didntcha? Well…good for you.

  4. maciek Says:

    “Btw, you still haven’t answered my question.”

    Because it was a non-sensical question. But ok: of course food is a basic right, that’s why most sane countries have government-sponsored food banks and shelters besides a slew of other programs that all make up a social safety net.

    • culturecrusader Says:

      Oh, I see it was just a nonsensical question. And I suppose you didn’t want to make me look silly by pointing that out, right?

      Government-sponsored food banks, shelters and the “slew of other programs” that you mention “sane” governments provide to some of their citizenry are not “rights” they are goods. Rights are what you naturally possess, and that everyone naturally and equally possesses. A good is something you want or need, and some have wants and needs that are greater than others. The view that you have a “right” to something that you need or want requires someone else to provide that need or want to you. It means that that other person does not have the right to refuse you, or the right to charge you what they think is the value for their labor.

      But ok, let’s follow the thread of your logic. Where do these “rights” as you call them come from? Does the government wave a magic wand and food just appears? What about housing? Do little government elves tinker away at night to build government managed housing projects? No, obviously these things cost money. Where does the money come from? It comes from your taxes (I say you, since you claim to have job). It comes from the government making the determination that it is acceptable to take wealth from some of its citizens and give it to other of its citizens (and in some cases even non-citizens) in the form of food, housing and just plain money. There’s a word for it: redistribution. Others might simply call it stealing. I call it socialism. And, you are correct; in many socialist—what you would call sane—countries, redistribution of wealth is called a right. But having an official in the government, whether it be George Bush, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin, calling it a “right” does not make it so. And if it does in America, then we’re all in a big heap of trouble.

      Governments in communist countries, banana republics and the like are all about giving out free stuff and calling it “rights.” The only problem is that sooner or later the free stuff runs out and then there’s no more “right” to it. And that’s when things get ugly.
      Ask yourself, if everyone in the world decided to sit on their ass and say to the government: “I have a right to food. Where is my food?” what would happen? Absolutely nothing. That is until somebody from the government came along with a gun and forced somebody else to produce the food for the others. Does all this sound absurd to you? It shouldn’t. It is precisely what Stalin tried to do, remember? I would think coming from Poland, as you say you do, you would be extra sensitive to this kind of thing. But I guess not.

      The government giving you something for free and calling it a right does not make it a right. It makes you dependent.

    • maciek Says:

      That’s the problem with your line of thinking – you assume the worst about people. Of course, that fact is that people do not just decide to sit on their ass. Tell me oh Crusader – how do do you define what is naturally possessed as a right? What is your criteria for determining what is natural?

      I don’t know about you, but I prefer living in a society that provides for its needy. And paying taxes is part of that.

      • culturecrusader Says:

        Ah, but that’s where you are wrong! I don’t assume the worst about people. I assume the worst about governments. I have the greatest faith in people. I have faith that they will take care of their fellow man; that they can show almost boundless compassion and charity. But not because a “society” or government leader says they have to, because that would be neither compassion nor charity, but because these things are a part of our natural humanity. And there, my friend, is where I suggest you look if you are truly interested in learning about where our rights come from.

      • culturecrusader Says:

        “I don’t know about you, but I prefer living in a society that provides for its needy. And paying taxes is part of that.”

        So I don’t know when you pay your taxes (in this country tax day is today, April 15), but I’m assuming based on the above statement that you always pay more than you owe right? I mean, you do want to live in a society that helps the needy and you assert that paying taxes to the government is the way you do that right?

        In case you haven’t seen my latest post yet, click here: https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/it%e2%80%99s-tax-day-so-were-all-paying-double-to-the-irs-this-year-right/

  5. Shweta Says:

    You spoke a lot about how Obama killed bipartisanship in your long winded ramblings about the healthcare reform…Get the fuck over it. When Bush was in office he did what the fuck he wanted. Obama can’t move an inch without being scrutinized. So bipartanship only applies…when your party is in office.

    Culture war? As in the handful of loons tea partying…against the rest of the US’s population…hmm, wonder whose going to win this ‘war.’ Even respectable Republicans think the Tea Party is ridiculous.

  6. Shweta Says:

    I don’t, I think you’re a tea crapper.

  7. Shweta Says:

    The Taxed Enough Already crowd…is just a chunk of Republican radicals. Not all Republican’s are so irreversibly flawed as your expressed beliefs, however, I’ve yet to see a sane Tea party Rally…or those who support it, like your ‘do no wrong’ Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin.

    You are entirely what this TPR is about…just racial slurs, and miming Palin drones.

  8. culturecrusader Says:

    Listen, cool it with the cursing ok. I don’t mind a little salty language now and then but sometimes kids read this stuff. I don’t want to block or delete you, but I will if I must. Ok?

  9. Shweta Says:

    You…are worried about the youth of the internet(as if young kids are googling Biden slurs) They are not, I can assure you kids only google one thing…Cursing offends you. Not blatant racism. Huh…I’ll note that. You never even defend that it isn’t racist when I call out racial slurs made by your party, and there are many, numerous made by your top two…I honestly have nothing left to say anyway. Talking to a wall…

  10. maciek Says:

    “…but because these things are a part of our natural humanity. And there, my friend, is where I suggest you look if you are truly interested in learning about where our rights come from”

    Well, like many of your arguments, that sounds really good and like something that is just simply beyond-questioning true – but it doesn’t really mean anything beyond the definitions you choose to apply to those things. What I’m interested in knowing is what criteria you use to determine what is natural, what is natural humanity, and what is naturally possessed? Because, as I’m sure you’ll agree, various societies and individuals throughout history and even today have come up with quite different answers to these questions – so what are yours?

    • culturecrusader Says:

      Well, you obviously haven’t been reading some of my other posts on here concerning what is a right and what is not. But that’s ok, I understand you have a job and all…

      First, these aren’t my criteria, if you can even call them that. They are simply truths. American truths. As the founders of this great nation were able to reason out, defining what is a “right” among a free people is as simple as identifying a self-evident truth. That truth being that we are all endowed, from birth, with certain unalienable rights. The first being that we live. And because we live we have liberty. And inasmuch as we have liberty, we have the ability to pursue happiness in all its forms. But the key thing here is that these rights are unalienable: meaning that they are incapable of being separated from us. They can neither be diminished nor added to. They are simply there, as a part of our individual humanity. Notice I do not say collective humanity. A big difference. Your individual rights—to life, liberty, and the pursuit of your own happiness—only go so far. If in exercising your rights you infringe on the rights of any other, then we are no longer talking about a right. And the role of the government? Simply to secure these rights, to the extent they are permitted to do so by the consent of the governed.
      For more on this see:

      But hey, don’t take my word for it. Read Thomas Jefferson:

      “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate…”
      “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases…”
      “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not….”

      And of course, his best known words:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

      Or, if you prefer a modern-day Thomas Jefferson, Judge Andrew Napolitano:


      • Maciek Says:

        Uh, uh Crusader,

        The whole point of my question was to see whether you would go beyond assertions such as “these are simply truths”. Well the thing about truths, when such they are, is that we can at least make attempts to reasonably say “well this is true because of 1,2, and 3, etc.” You now – demonstrate why these things are true, not just assert that they are and keep repeating what others have said. Because that way anyone could ‘justify’ anything, no matter how ludicrous. I mean you don’t just accept what some leaders say without justifying things with your own thought-process, do you?

      • culturecrusader Says:

        I think you are getting yourself unnecessarily confused by all this. If you want to talk in syllogisms then it’s quite simple:
        1- America is great (and hopefully continues to be so even after it survives Obama); 2- Why is America great? Because of the American way; 3- What is the American way? The way that was established by the founders which recognizes that it is the government of the people and not the other way around.
        Get it now?

      • Maciek Says:

        No no – you’re still confused, Crusader. I have simply been asking how you define certain things, rather than take them for granted. It’s a simple enough question (though with probably complex answers) and yet you keep giving me this America is great stuff. And here I thought you could actually be interesting. By the way, the founders – you mean like the guys who formed the government? C’mon, you know they can’t be trusted.

      • culturecrusader Says:

        Well, I’m sorry I can’t be more interesting. That’s as good as it gets I’m afraid.

        And yes, I mean those founders. And by the way, I and they would agree with you: they can’t be trusted, which is precisely why they placed limitations on themselves. Beginning to see the light?

      • maciek Says:

        There you go again stating the most obvious things as if they were your original thoughts. Yes, yes we all get the concept of the rule of law. What I would like to know is whether you’ve considered that the founders themselves were politicians and whether their 18th century political vision is as good as it gets? Stay the line or go downhill? Seeing as they were both intelligent people and consummate politicians, I certainly believe that they would look at the world today, recognize that it is a far different place from their time, and perhaps also agree that it is all well and good to advocate individualism, but societies have grown into far more complex things than they once were. You may live in a world of extremes where anything left of yourself is socialism – but there are bucketloads of countries that have better standards of living, higher life expectancy, far lower crime rates, far fewer slums, and higher education levels than America the great. Now why is that?

      • culturecrusader Says:

        Yes, what the founders of America conceived is as good as it gets. It only gets worse from there and it has gotten worse both here and especially in Europe (need I remind you) and that is why they would not recognize this country as the one they founded. We have moved far away from their original conception.

        I take issue with your description of them as consummate politicians inasmuch as politicians seek to gain power for themselves. These are men who, for the most part, walked away from power when they could have had more. Look at George Washington. Some wanted to make him a king, or at least President until death. And yet, he just wanted to go back to Mount Vernon. Now is that the kind of thing a consummate politician would do? But it is the kind of thing a statesman would do; and sadly there are pitifully few of those left in the world today.

        As for the countries with supposedly better living stadards, name them and define what you mean by standards. And please, don’t say Canada or Poland.

  11. Shweta Says:


    I attempted to engage you in a conversation about Ann Coulter, and how anyone could possibly rise to her defense, and you avoided it. That is where, I tried on three different occasions to get a response.

  12. Shweta Says:

    do you really have suspicions of Muslim American citizens? That was the question in question.

  13. Maciek Says:

    … well Canada is consistently rated higher than the US in standard of living indexes as are a dozen or so countries, mostly in Europe. And as far as violent crime goes, don’t even go there – but I imagine that the level of violent crime in the US is the fault of lax laws and declining morality brought on by liberals and has nothing to do with the millions of guns out on the street or with the totally gross disparities in standard of living levels within your country or with the military/militia culture with which you define patriotism.

    • culturecrusader Says:

      First answer these two questions and then we can talk about comparing living standards and other indices:
      1. How much, as a percentage of their GDP, do Canada and the European nations you are referring to spend on their own defense and why are they able to spend so little?
      2. How much, as a percentage of its GDP, does the United States spend on defense and why are we compelled to spend so much?
      HINT: The answer to question 1 is related to the answer to question 2.

      • Maciek Says:

        You’re ignoring all of my points on the US’s internal problems… as for defence – BS my friend. Perhaps other nations spend less on defence because they’re not perpetually paranoid about being surrounded by enemies, axes of evil, etc.

        US military spending doesn’t prove anything else beyond that the US spends sums that are beyond adjectives on ‘defence’ (besids which, ‘military spending’ is rather more accurate than ‘defence spending’, which is a nice enough euphemism, but seeing as US military actions tend to be exported elsewhere….)

        That’s one of the results of navel-gazing – the only perspective you give any validity to is your own. So if you spend crazy money on your military, it doesn’t even dawn on you to ask whether you need to do it – if you’re doing it, it must be necessary, right?

        And if 50% of americans don’t pay their federla taxes – where does all that money come from? I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I think that the sheer size of the American arms industry is a little scary (and Canada’s participation in it more than a little shameful) + wars justified as being ‘just’ when the motives are far less unambiguous are certainly not an american invention – but you do it well.

        Anyhoo, the argument that the US is a protector of other nations only works if you buy into the argument of the necessity of all these armaments in the first place. Anything is possible, but in today’s world – the only regimes that don’t see that trade is far more beneficial than plunder are two-bit dictators – and the majority of them talk far bigger than they really are. There’s nothing to justify the ridiculous volume of the US military aside from mistrust of everything not American and the military being so entrenched in your culture that anyone who calls for reductions is branded unpatriotic – which is unfortunately the state of things in Poland as well – a country that emulates the US in more ways than is healthy.

        On another note, getting back to your argument for America’s founding statesmen having provided an optimal political model – you’re not the first and you will not be the last person on earth to argue that the way to fix society is to return to some ideal, primal state from which culture has only declined. Unfortunately for you, that never works, in part because the ideal state was never as ideal as we imagine it to be. And as for the founding fathers not recognizing the US as the country they founded – well it has been over 200 years, hasn’t it and the world just has this way of changing. That is its only constant. All successful states, such as the US, got to be that way not by clinging to an idealized past, but by always rethinking their situation and best adapting to it – the key word being adapting, which implies change.

  14. Gem of the Week: Brussels Biden « Culture Crusader Says:

    […] https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/this-universal-healthcare-thing-is-a-big-fing-deal/ […]

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: