Where to File This Level of In(s)anity? (How Not to Use the Internet)

I have attempted to tri-furcate my basic blogging into at least three strands which won’t so offend half a polarized audience they miss the main point which, at all points (whether family law (gender wars), Economic Brain, or the Jesus question (and how it plays into federal financing…) are STILL going to represent one basic question: Of Control. As a primary means of control in this world is now “economic,” they are mostly going to boil down to “who’s in charge of the cash flow, and the assets (resources) which generate profits, and pipelines through which they flow (change hands)?”

Then, on a lighter vein, I had a related blog for things which just wouldn’t fit, but were worth having some fun with, and I called that one “Not Close Enough for Jazz” under username “Justice Matters!” (which it does). However, as today (January 1, 2013) I’m also struggling with new input devices behaving differently, and a little emotional drama as well, it wasn’t worth the time to dredge up the other account access. As there is something I want to post today — here will have to do.

But, I kind of reached an “impasse” on discovering a nonprofit called “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Who the he!! do these think they are? Is this a joke?

WHO CARES? What does it Matter?

Maybe it’s none of my business, but I do care. Some paragraphs of melodrama to say why:

I believe it’s evident by now how the internet as a technological tool can be used to expose behavior, or hide it, and to either obscure a money trail and/or follow it. It also can be used to construct and support a FANTASTIC array of technological wonders of the modern world (keeping in mind that this is what “empires” do. They expand militarily and build monuments to worship the local gods; in our case, (USA), as I’ve affirmed, such things as “The Myth of the Rule of Law” and the concept that the services provided by government are central — rather than incidental — to its functioning.

I relate to people on an intellectual level and am energized by creative ideas and synthesis of them to deepen understandings of (the world, or at least my world!). This gets very complicated when I belong to a genetic chromosomal community (I have a “XX” where some have “XY”) that within both religious AND increasingly, federal, circles, isn’t supposed to speak so much. We are supposed to listen and be coached. Within so-called “libertarians” circles, about the same applies (plus skin color).

TODAY (another year in a certain saga):

I was almost in tears recently expressing to a (virtual) stranger, as it were an acquaintance, who knows my routine (i.e., where I write) what it’s like to simply not see one’s kids, while they are minors and thereafter, holiday after holiday year after year, and for no legitimate reason, in a struggle for power, including control of them, and through them, of family money. This struggle was played out first by a process of repeatedly interrupting, then eventually eliminating all visible means of “income” (support, self-sustenance) and thereafter lecturing me for not having enough visible support outside the (abusive individuals). It is something women seem particularly adept at doing to each other which, for this purpose, sometimes (their) men, who don’t want to stoop to that level, are adept at prompting and goading the women into doing this. At least, I know how it played out in my own family line. While I was indeed prepared for the religious version of gender gap, I’d mistakenly thought this didn’t apply so severely among, say, agnostics. I had not married a professional equal, but within my faith; which was as it turned out, unwise. The concept of marriage as a process of domestication, humiliation and eventual physical abuse was not in the fine print — or even on my radar. Funny thing that. if you’re not exposed to this already, it’s hard to imagine that someone would be capable of it.

Anyhow, thereafter (after separation, as a single mother and playing it out through the courts) I had to beomce AS adept at switching gears quickly, seeking alternate ways — or models — of existing, it felt, as during that marriage. The same struggle, in other words, simply switched venues. I learned that the same outfits which had initially helped me say “NO” to abuse had their own incentives, with which the best interests of this particular family (my kids, or so I thougt) just did not meld. At all points, ones dealing with the dichotomy of many myths…

Personally, rather than full-frontal engagement with people I consider to be crooks, sociopaths, or spiritually bankrupt (choose your language/frame of reference), I attempted (time after time) to handle this in a creative manner, while asserting boundaries (which were ignored anyhow). If one’s line of work is professional in nature, that involves a stability, a momentum, and some longevity within work. Thanks to the family court system, anyone can haul the other person into court on a frivolous, or genuine, cause of action at any point in time, perpetually, until all children have aged out. The “game” is springing it on the other partner when they are most vulnerable or least prepared. Or having a long, slow buildup with explosion in the form of an incident. In my case, this was classic “felony child-stealing.” Only, it wasn’t. It was, factually, but because these other courts grab jurisdiction of one’s kids wherever there is “conflict,” it apparently wasn’t legally. That experiences was how i eventually learned about my own government’s transformation into a social science engineering outfit, enabled through federal grants and accumulation of major centralized wealth (“largesse” as it will) to be distributed to those who bow to the current policies. In shock, I blogged this (2009ff).

However, this survival process does get old; so at times does the physical framework (i.e., body). One would like to be able to see a few months or a year ahead and actually get from here to there in one piece, or to achieve a season of peace, cease-fire, or a refuge of some sorts. There comes a point there the degree of psychological and fear-mongering abuse has an impact on the human psyche; it has to be handled. If a work life cannot maintain a momentum, then one is in perpetual “start-up” mode with less and less margin of error. Don’t know how else to put that — it’s how I see the deal.

There’s a limit to stoicism, I think. Although next year, I plan to try it on again for size. But I found myself, last month, as a result in part of some recent attempts to connect [and to shake up the routine a little bit, I admit..] around a common theme (i.e., “God”) with yet another evangelistic, Bible-toting group who didn’t do the Sunday-Wednesday routine, but actually went out around the community. So far, so good, but I again (as is my habit when actually involved in the scriptures, i.e., sharing them) forgot to be submissive, semi-apologetic, timid, or in summary of those qualities, religiously “female enough” in demeanor.

I narrated THAT (fiasco) over at the JLC blog (call it “filing” system, right?) This, combined with being professionally eviscerated as well as having family relations amputated AND the history rewritten by (those in power of publicizing it), I sometimes find myself over-communicating. Anyhow, today, I blurted out a virtual biographical blurb of who I was (academic, professional, parental, divorcive, and post-abusive work/social/relationship-recontructive) . . . and ended up with an aftertaste that I’d been whining simply because I can’t buck up and conform, like others seem to be able to.

Except that’s simply not the whole truth. There really ARE genetic, not just social/environmental, differences among people in the same family line (same two parents) — which sometimes shows up in what fields they go into, and over the curve of a lifetime, what priorities they have. I happen to know where I function well — and as whom, it’s largely hunter-gatherer, problem-solver, and as necessary, serial entrepreneur. I can function in large corporations, but the high pay (not that high in my case) isn’t worth it. And adding in the difficult marriage, was definitely not worth it!). So I tend to run across the electric fence limits of, well, ways of living, on a regular basis. As a parent, I know also that some kids are just different from the start. To force them to attempt a lifetime to function outside their abilities seems insane (but that, again, is what our country seems to specialize in, particularly with its educational system, caste-based, etc.).

This would’ve been a New Year’s Letter, addressed to what comprises People I Now Communicate With (not exactly Friends, Family OR “Colleagues,” but something of a mix). Writing the holiday letter after a non-holiday gets olds. So if you got a link to here in an email, this is it. The inspiration for writing it is in the last segment, about the Dueling Christian (religious) Nonprofits trying to control each other, while incorporating, taking donations, publishing and holding conferences. It has to be seen to be believed…..Religious systems ARE control systems — and they are not prone to taking orders from upstarts. How do you think we got so many “denominations” to start with?


ANYHOW, Here’s My NEW YEAR’s MESSAGE (other than what I would write personally to my actual biological offspring):


No, my friends. While some people are using the internet for any number of constructive or destructive purposes: (See my last post) or to lose billions of $$ through HUD accidentally on purpose), or to help leverage support for major infrastructures of the world, such as this:

INTELLIGENT USE OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY FOR INFORMATION LEVERAGE ON MAJOR PROJECTS

Bentley is the global leader dedicated to providing architects, engineers, geospatial professionals, constructors, and owner-operators with comprehensive software solutions for sustaining infrastructure. Bentley’s mission is to empower its users to leverage information modeling through integrated projects for high-performing intelligent infrastructure. Its solutions encompass the MicroStation platform for infrastructure design and modeling, the ProjectWise platform for infrastructure project team collaboration and work sharing, and the AssetWise platform for infrastructure asset operations – all supporting a broad portfolio of interoperable applications and complemented by worldwide professional services. Founded in 1984, Bentley has grown to nearly 3,000 colleagues in more than 45 countries and over $500 million in annual revenues. Since 2003, the company has invested more than $1 billion in research, development, and acquisitions.

From buildings to bridges, transit to utilities, clean energy to clean water,
Bentley is Sustaining Infrastructure. Find out more in this inspiring video.

Learn more about Bentley Systems:


Or, others may use the internet to keep a handle on where federal money is going, as does, for example, “FEDMINE.com” — or to throw them off by obfuscating where federal grants are actually going, as does, I learned the hard way, “TAGGS.hhs.gov,” or some (like me) may have some fun comparing Bentley’s Largest Owners of the World’s Infrastructure with Taggs.hhs.gov (and complaining loudly about it) on my poorly copyedited and nonproofred wordpress blog, i.e., “The World’s Largest of Global Infrastructure is Broke Like Me*, which Must Explain the Lousy Data Entry.”

(*It’s not broke, as we have been saying, but is simply losing (or laundering) money, coup-ing the d’etat, or reframing the financial accounts to look more broke so as to raise more money — depending on who one believes.). Meanwhile I know that the gender wars are having economic effect (intentionally) and being who I am, having explored the “live and let live” philosophy (ain’t working in today’s political climate for divorcing families who have “conflict” as opposed to those who part amicably, or within reason amicably. (I ran into a woman the other day — excessively religious, I felt — who confided in me that the court had opted to wipe her ex’s criminal record because, in their words, he was the “breadwinner,” and it would impact his ability to support the family. I thought she might want reference, but the next time we spoke, I was informed that this docile mother (of sons) had opted to simply GIVE UP, and was instead occupying a smaller space in life, and running a series of Bible Fellowships which (I had a taste) I seem to recall as too controlling for my own taste anyhow. The number of control systems for the already docile, submissive, feminine, and “used for breeding” women in this world are unbelievable.” Well, if the individual wasn’t willing suffer social exclusion from a religious community, maybe it was just as well….)

CRAFTY USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR LESS THAN HONORABLE PURPOSES..

For this, see some recent posts, I”m not summarizing it on New Year’s Eve. But one example can be mentioned regarding the court docketing system: Check out Janet Phelan (journalist) reporting on Joseph Zernik’s discoveries, in (2010) “Computerized or Con-Puterized” for the essential dilemma — one system for the plebes, another for the “in-crowd.” This seems to apply across society. Access to the higher levels of information technology — well, I’m just not sure how this is obtained outside working in a major institution (including a university setting, the film industry, or the military), where funding is well-established – or within profession where the funds in general aren’t exactly lacking (can you spell “LAWYER”?

Here’s a section of Computerized vs. Con-Puterized which brings up a basic principle — How software itself can be used to “bifurcate” the truth and, of course, change the forms of government, including basic common law due process. If you click on the link there’s also a “birther” (Barak Obama) comment on there, if you could put that on the back burner for now, please (thanks) — not the main point. And, although I’ve pasted fully 8 paragraphs here (assuming the para. breaks remain) I think it’s relevant enough to mention — we are having the administrative outsourcing of judicial processes. Anecdotal accounts from a variety of (parents, in particular — and often re: child support, one mother even found her own divorce was bogus) — again, it’s the MYTH of the Rule of Law holding this place together, apparently…:

Computerized or Con-Puterized?

Amidst the rumblings that “equal justice under the law” is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor –first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.

Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as “Sustain,” installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.

Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed “Sustain” as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.

In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place –one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.

Apart from the obvious issues raised by two separate systems which are apparently functioning for different tiers of individuals—the public on one hand and the lawyers and court officers on the other– Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. The established procedure, which required that an authorized Deputy Clerk of the court stamp each paper “Entered” and endorse it with his hand signature to attest to the entering of documents into a given case docket, was altered with no legal authority. In place of the signature of an authorized clerk, we now have what is called Notice of Electronic Filings, bearing a “digital signature.” This is merely a computer-generated string of letters, which do not necessarily affirm that a living, breathing person has even viewed or approved the documents to be filed or entered. These digital signatures can, in fact, be programmed into a system so that paperwork is filed and entered which has not even been assessed to be ready for filing and entering. Zernik has affirmed that attorneys are entering documents and the court computer system is automatically generating a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF), in the apparent absence of clerk oversight.

There is a further issue that Zernik finds equally troubling. The Notice of Electronic Filings (NEFs) now regularly produced by the computer systems may not even contain any signatures, digital or no, that are traditionally needed to prove that a document has been appropriately entered. Under CM/ECF, Zernik found that in certain cases no digital signatures whatsoever were issued in the NEFs of court orders and judgments. This raises grave questions as to the validity of the documents.

And how is the public to know if court papers are valid or not? According to Zernik, the public now cannot, in fact, know. The NEFs, the most critical instrument in determining which papers were valid court papers, were made visible only to specific attorneys in a given case, through CM/ECF, and were entirely omitted from PACER – the public access system.

Zernik likens this system to a complex and invisible form of check fraud. “The dual system created by the US courts through PACER and CM/ECF can be thought of as issuing checks, where the public is required to accept the checks from the courts in lieu of cash, while the court resorts to the habit of distributing unsigned checks, but only a select group of people are permitted to see which checks bear signatures and which ones do not,” says Zernik.


That’s not a one-post topic, obviously; I’m just raising the point. Time and again, in looking at the various grants coursing through (private + welfare HHS-style (i.e., marriage-centric) funding affecting the custody courts in the states) have required auditing for lack of accountability, and some of this turns out to be a software issue (Parents Fair Share in Missouri comes to mind).

And the main point of this post, last, but not least:

IDIOTIC USE OF THE INTERNET TO DISTRACT FROM (ALL OF) THE ABOVE: A.K.A DUELING CHRISTIAN NONPROFITS ON THE ISSUES OF MANHOOD, WOMANHOOD, AND HOW TO GET BAPTISTS, and others, TO ACCEPT GENDER EQUALITY!”

(If the links do not show up as active, I may come back and fix another day.

The irony of dueling religious tax-exempt organizations, both of who believe a version of “the gospel” which was certificated and authenticated somewhere around 300A.D. with the help of a Roman Emperor, and sustained for many centuries through various forms of “persuasion,” most of which involved either blood, and/or fire, and/or excommunication (starving people out) and now that we have this wonderful technology — the internet (through which we can both track others and be spied upon without notice to us, by USA, Inc.) — and a commercial system of for-profit // not for profit, with religious organizations being almost as opaque to the public as, say, private equity — well, It’s just a bit too much.

Enjoy the Fly on the Wall opportunity here, it’s rare!
From Yours Truly:


January 1, 2013Dear (Whomever):

Happy New Year!

Please feel free to forward this web-disseminated idiocy:
https://www.cbmw.org/  (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womenhood.  First (black-background) moving screen focuses on the evil “Biblical feminists.”  Which may help explain in part how some of us became feminists to start with…

This is probably the best response I found for it yet, from a “bWE” (Baptist Women for Equality):
They demanded an apology, listing a number of reasons why the “Danvers Statement” on which it’s based is offensive.
http://bwebaptistwomenforequality.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/demand-for-apology-from-the-council-on-biblical-manhood-and-biblical-womanhood/

“Incredulous” Response:
http://robertcargill.com/2011/07/09/there-really-is-a-council-on-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/
(Cargill has a very interesting educational background:  Says he turned down three college opportunities (including UCB, USC, and Pepperdine), worked through a local community college, then ended up going to Pepperdine anyhow (Pepperdine being a conservative (!!! !!!!) Christian university in Malibu, squeaky-clean, with a sector of it on the federal marriage/fatherhood grantee system.  They also run an “institute for Dispute Resolution” and figure in significantly to the family law field in California (and outside), central to which these days is mediation.  He’s a University of Iowa, into classics, and the scrolls, not straight-out evangelism.

“Sarcastic” Response:
http://www.johnstackhouse.com/2012/04/01/gospel-coalition-council-on-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-reveal-huge-prank/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(excerpt — I follow parts anyhow):
“Yes,” said [John] Piper, putting his arm around Mark Driscoll, “we had to pull out the Big Gun here and try to rankle a whole new generation into paying attention. I mean, the arguments have already been laid out pretty clearly on behalf of egalitarianism, but Markie here did the job of annoying people under 40 enough to actually explore the issue for themselves.” Mention of Driscoll, pastor of the wildly successful Mars Hill congregation in Seattle, Wash., prompted the panel to disclose that The Gospel Coalition was really just a foil for the Emergent Church movement.

“We were happy to do double duty,” Carson said. “I mean, I had time on my hands. Trinity has given me this posh post, and the New Testament isn’t all that hard to figure out. So I’ve been able to write tons of books and articles ‘warning’ people” (at this point he used his fingers in the “scare quotes” gesture) “about all kinds of false doctrine. The point, of course, was to get people to think theologically for once, instead of just thinking about a Christian diet plan or listening to mindless CCM all the time.”

“I was in the same situation,” Piper volunteered. “I mean, my church pretty much runs itself by now and everybody there knows what I’m going to say each Sunday morning, so I can kinda preach on autopilot and then take the time necessary to stir up American Christians to new ideas by playing this hilarious Stephen Colbert role I love so much!”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

“Moderate // Engaging the Dialogue” Response:
http://newlife.id.au/tag/council-on-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

Personally I find the information about the Bentley 500, or the histories of governments, or institutions (Such as, The Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton — and how the co-founder of played a significant role in developing, for example, an Honors System of study in the United States of America (i.e., dual-track from the beginning) while playing a major role in the Rhodes Scholarships — which a recent President (Clinton), a Senator (Fullbright), and a Georgetown Professor (“Quigley”) who apparently inspired Clinton — and relating this to other things, such as the diamond cartel and (in short) things which explain to us “how the world works” in a corporate viewpoint — are much more interesting.

The “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” would be ONLY amusing, if it hadn’t been for a certain Election 2000 which helped further enable people who think like this to form corporations which take our “public” funds and redistribute them in a misguided attempt to bring in the Kingdom of God (Dominion for Christ) before Christ returns — alternately (the agnostic, but also federally funded, “I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you” version) — Futures Without Violence, through media campaigns…. (a SF domestic violence agency which is, like others, ignoring the bloodshed and turmoil associated with the family law system in the USA, as engineered by professional nonprofit associations, etc. etc.).

I have to hand it to “Baptist Women for Equality” for making a strong statement of “we are concerned about” (you should read) — but the “We Demand from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” to act differently seems rather like (to borrow a Biblical phrase) trying to turn goats into sheep. It ain’t likely to happen in this lifetime. I rather recommend, simply self-embarrassing them by posting what they actually believe, and closely track their corporate status for honesty. (For example, I have already looked at the so-called Kentucky corporation and it has plenty of gaps). Look at the books. Stay on them like “white on rice” if the goal is controlling a group bent on controlling.

Apparently there’s quite a bit of excessive control within Baptists (rather legalist overall) — expect more in all Christian denominations in the years to come.

I will not be (FYI) planning to have a 2013 that in any primary way resembles 2012. I too believe that “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”
I look forward to seeing what leverage for change exists.

Happy New Year, and feel free to tweet, contact me through the comments field (if further questions), and figure out who in YOUR area are the local government entities, viewing their “CAFRs” and seeing where the extra funding comes in.

Child SUpport Enforcement is still a $4 billion a year industry — and a lot is lost in the cracks. If you are a taxpayer, this one is worth looking at; there are “Children’s Trust Funds” in state after state. I assure you, monies are being misdirected to tweak custody cases.

In the very serious matter of dual docketing systems for either courts, or finances, there’s yet another set of issues which are frightening in scope — among them:

1. Minor children in the foster care system and how this relates to child trafficking, where it does, that is.
2. Social Security Numbers used as the basis for billing federal (or other) funds for program services, when the services were not received — i.e., fraud.
3. What about records of PRISONERS? Remembering we allegedly do not have a slavery system in this country, we do have something called a prison system (Federal Bureau of Prisons) and this has been privatized. For example, when the attorney Richard Fine (who uncovered a number of slush funds, apparently, in California // Los Angeles judicial matters, as well as in child support matters ((“Silva v. Garcetti,” Garcetti being the Los Angeles District Attorney at the time)), I read a number of accounts where his literal arrest record was falsified. The site “FullDisclosure.net” follows up on this. It was commonly known he was led in handcuffs away from the courtroom, but apparently he was “booked” in a non-extant location in San Pedro (a port section of Los Angeles, actually)….
3A. Prison stock is up: Corrections Corporation of America. In addition to simply being a business (i.e., the real estate staffing, etc., the whole panoply of what goes on in them), there are all kinds of programs being marketed TO prisoners (including re-entry fatherhood grants funded by HHS groups) and the prisoners also learn job skills (?) by working, manufacturing various products.
3B. Accountability for reducing sexual assault of the prisoners was brought up to share holders (by an ex-prisoner who brought shares for this purpose) but rejected. This gets interesting in that it’s profitable to warehouse people IF you are holding that stock. Apparently, a Tennessee Governor (lamar Alexander and his wife) had stock in this corporation, which was cleaned up before governorship (see details, don’t quote me on my paraphrase there).
4. Speaking of warehousing, I think the role of HUD in this was mentioned in my lsat post (quoting Fitts’ work) on “negative ROI”

_ _ _ _
Perhaps I should quit thinking like this and get back (nose to grindstone) in pretending not to know nay of this and hoping that somehow female diligence, creativity, determination, grit, — and some luck probably (grace??) — can outwit the apparent schedule of decline into dependency which my LOGIC tells me is otherwise straight ahead, if I don’t “Craft a raft” (fast).

However, I have said what I have said for now, and ask people to understand that they shouldn’t be supporting religions with federal perks, or faith-based grants, unless they truly believe that shlock about female inferiority and submissiveness, or else.

Logic can be a curse, you know — because we are living in such a “created” world these days (a virtual reality in so many sectors of life, particularly the economy and social relationships) — that grasping just how tenuous this is, can be truly frightening. Logic, I can deal with up to a point. Irrational human thinking based on religion — or dueling religious world views in on the federal financing, which is actually a nationwide financing superstructure (see “income tax,” etc.) — now that is truly daunting. I will do the best I can see to do, as before. It may be a very critical year in the USA and globally. Just remember — “all that glitters is not gold,” that diamonds are only forever because someone previously formed a cartel to convince us they were, and that the US $ is Legal Tender, not Bona Fide Money. Pick your rock-bottom beliefs, and double-check them; they will definitely be tested this season!

Advertisements

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