Video Ted Cruz is For Eminent Domain Use….

Posted on February 8, 2016 by

Senate Candidate Ted Cruz was for it, before he was against it… (via Mr. Pinko iOTW)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Election 2016, media bias, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Video Ted Cruz is For Eminent Domain Use….

  1. hocuspocus13 says:
    February 8, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    …a gotcha moment…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • LiberatedCitizen (@LiberatedCit) says:
      February 9, 2016 at 12:20 am

      Cruz is one of the biggest phonies out there. Flashback…

      Cruz seizes on eminent domain as wedge against Trump in New Hampshire
      http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/politics/cruz-eminent-domain-trump/

      And Ted also supports eminent domain for the Keystone Pipeline that a private company is building. Oil is subsidized and has been for years.( http://bit.ly/1lYIlaX ) Cruz has at least $365,000 in oil/gas company investments ( http://bit.ly/1WMIfjW ) and at least $50,000 of that is in Plains GP Holdings, a company that transports oil and gas liquids.( http://dmreg.co/1Fo6HA1 )

      So Ted Cruz stands to make money on the Keystone Pipeline. In addition, Cruz has gotten $25 million in oil super pac money http://cnn.it/1JlSzLy and over $952,000 in oil campaign contributions. http://bit.ly/1LdvCuO

      Cruz SCREAMS against Crony Capitalism publicly all the while taking the cronies money and buying into the cronies deals.

      Keystone pipeline firm files for eminent domain against Nebraska landowners
      http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-land-2015-0120-story.html

      https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3182/1292/original.jpg?w=800&h

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      • rashamon says:
        February 9, 2016 at 2:30 am

        As a matter of clarification, the oil and gas industry benefits from a loophole in the tax code that allows immediate expensing vs. depreciation over time, put in place because wildcatters could spend huge amounts of money drilling before they finally determined a well was dry. The government was trying to encourage exploration to counter the whiplash pricing of the overseas marketplace. Farmers also can deduct the expenses of preparing land in order to plant crops. That is not a subsidy.

        Close loopholes if you like, but don’t confuse them with subsidies given to sugar, peanuts, honey, rice, soybeans, wheat, solar, electric cars — whatever the government deems critical — or supports via demanding corn ethanol be used to cut gasoline, all of which make the product more expensive for the consumer. Some of these subsidies were part of the New Deal to fight the Great Depression of the 1930s and have never been re-examined for political reasons. Big Ag such as Monsanto has replaced most of the small farmers those subsidies that the PTB were trying to help and now distort our economy in the prices we pay at the grocery store and the cost of land in rural communities.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          February 9, 2016 at 4:32 am

          Thanks for that clarification.

          I will just add this about farmers and subsidies so people can understand why the subject is explosive in farm comunities.

          A Pew Report noted that in a rural town the income earned by a large corporate farm leaves the community imediately while a dollar earned by a family farm turned over seven times supporting rural bankers, implement dealers, and other small businesses. This Senator in his address also touches on this,

          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:S28MR0-0011:
          THE FREEDOM TO FARM ACT was written by Dan Amstutz Vice President of Cargill, and president of the international grain traders Assoc.
          ” Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as much as I hate to recognize this, this is the fourth anniversary of the passage by the House and the Senate of the “freedom to fail” bill.

          …..The bill has made sweeping changes in agriculture–it has produced one of the worst economic crises that rural American has ever experienced. Thanks to the Freedom to Farm, or as I call it the Freedom to Fail Act, tens of thousands of farm families are in jeopardy of losing their livelihoods and life savings.

          The Freedom to Farm bill is not saving tax payers money, in fact we have spent $19 billion more in the first 4 years of the 1996 farm bill than was supposed to be spent through the 7 year life of the law.

          However, what has resulted is the precipitous loss of family farmers because this legislation has not provided small and moderate sized farmers with a safety net. Instead payment loopholes have been inserted in legislation that has allowed the largest argibusiness corporations to receive the lions share of government support. This is unacceptable.
          In my State of Minnesota, family farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1996 and more than 25 percent of the remaining farms may not cover expenses for 2000. Every month more and more family farmers are being forced to give up their life’s work, their homes, and their communities.

          The primary problem is price. The average price paid to producers for their crops has plummeted. Farmers suffer from a negative cash flow….
          merger after merger in the agriculture sector leaves producers wondering if they will be able to survive amidst the new giants of agribusiness…. From 1994 to 1998, consumer prices have increased 3 percent while the prices paid to farmers for their products has plunged 36 percent. Likewise, the impact of price disparity is reinforced by reports of record profits among agribusinesses at the same time producers are suffering an economic depression.

          In the past decade and a half, an explosion of mergers, acquisitions, and anti-competitive practices has raised concentration in American agriculture to record levels….“

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply
        • LiberatedCitizen (@LiberatedCit) says:
          February 9, 2016 at 1:30 pm

          A lot of people don’t really understand what a subsidy is so let’s define it first…

          DEFINITION of ‘Subsidy’
          A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.
          http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp#ixzz3zhFiGyQL

          Now let’s clear up the misunderstanding on ethanol the subsidies expired in 2012.

          Federal tax credit for ethanol expires
          http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/02/federal-tax-credit-for-ethanol-expires/

          After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires
          http://nyti.ms/1LcuhB4

          Like

          Reply
  2. Racine Thyme says:
    February 8, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    A great deal of intelligence is invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
  3. Redheart says:
    February 8, 2016 at 9:45 pm

    I agree with Cruz.

    Like

    Reply
    • Katherine McCoun says:
      February 8, 2016 at 9:55 pm

      Many of us are for ED until its our house or our farm that our family has invested in for generations that is wanted.
      Also, many of us do agree in principle with ED – this is in defense of the GOPe and other candidates taking Trump to task for using ED. Of course, he was offering generous compensation v. just taking private property as Jeb did in Fla as published earlier today on this web site.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 9, 2016 at 4:44 am

      No one likes eminent domain especially when they or their friends are the target. However it is a reasonable doctrine especically for road building or communication lines which is why it was placed in The Bill of Rights.
      “Amendment V

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      It gets dicy when it is a corporation doing the taking instead of the government and the use is for office space, football statiums or oil pipelines.

      However the Supreme Court did rule those are ‘public use’ therefore we are left with the unjust and illegal takings by the BLM in the Bundy ranch case or the illegal takings by L.A counting using changes in housing code. L.A. County’s Private Property War.

      Like

      Reply
  4. Justice_099 says:
    February 8, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    I’m surprised that nobody else has pointed out that Ted Cruz’s official campaign logo is the U.S. flag on fire

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply
  5. Rodney C. Johnson says:
    February 8, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    I am disgusted by Cruz, but I think his hardcore supporters are just as bad. Taking a quick glimpse at Hot Air, they are willing to excuse underhanded tactics when “Ted” uses them, and try to sell such as ‘strength’, and an ability to ‘get things done’.

    So basically, they claim to be outraged by Obama’s strong arming to push his agenda, but provided its a ‘Pure consistent Conservative’ all is good. That’s just a bit cult like.

    Or:
    According to Cruz Supporters…

    “Ted” lying and cheating = AWESOME President.

    Trump, saying some unkind words = INSANITY, Worst Person in the World!!!

    Liked by 13 people

    Reply
  6. kinthenorthwest says:
    February 8, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Hate to say it but Cruz is getting to look more and more like the Mirror Image of Hillary.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      February 9, 2016 at 5:07 am

      Cruz is a mirror image of Obummer right down to his questionable native-born citizenship and sealed records.

      Sen. Ted Cruz’s birth certificate shows he was born in Calgary Canada in 1970. At that time Canada DID NOT have dual citizenship.
      Ted Cruz’s Mother Was On Official List Of Canadian Citizens Eligible To Vote [and so was his father]

      Canada and Dual Citizenship
      Prior to 1947 and the introduction of the first Citizenship Act, there was legally no such thing as Canadian citizenship. Both native-born and naturalized citizens were British subjects. In 1977, the current Citizenship Act came into force, making extensive changes to the law. The effect was to make citizenship more widely available (for example, by reducing the period of residency required from five to three years), and to remove the special treatment for British nationals and the remaining discrimination between men and women.(1) The Act also provided that Canadians could hold dual citizenship, reversing the previous situation in which citizenship was lost upon the acquisition of the citizenship of another country.… — http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm

      Although the U.S. government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens…. [29] A U.S. citizen may lose his or her dual citizenship by obtaining naturalization in a foreign state… WIKI
      [29] US State Department Services Dual Nationality. U.S. Department of State.

      So by obtaining Canadian citizenship Cruz mum lost her US citizenship.

      Canada goes by English Common law as does the USA:
      US Supreme Court case United States vs Wong Kim Ark — https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
      By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality…. [So Cruz is Canadian AND can not have dual citizenship because Canada did not have dual citizenship before 1977]

      ….Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. [So Cruz is Canadian AND can not have dual citizenship because his Dad was not a resident in the United States.]

      Like

      Reply
      • Jack Long says:
        February 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

        Migrants to Canada from 1947 to 1977 were not asked about current passports when applying for Canadian citizenship.

        History of Canadian nationality Law>Acquisition and loss of citizenship under the Act (Last paragraph in the linked section)

        The US has no law regarding dual citizenship.

        US Embassy Canada – Dual citizenship

        I have kids with dual nationality, but not Canada. The other country’s passports were never a part of the passport procedure for either country, even though it is obvious from the birth documents that the child is eligible for a passport in another country. The non-birth country passports were obtained in person at the appropriate embassy. Not asking about other passports does not seem unusual to me.

        Cruz’s mother could have voluntarily renounced US citizenship, provided she had acquired a passport from another country. To affect Ted Cruz’s US birthright she would have had to first acquire a Canadian (or other) passport and then voluntarily renounce US citizenship before the end of Dec. 1970 (Ted Cruz born Dec 27?) . The Cruz’s moved to Canada sometime in 1969.

        Canada had a 5 year residency requirement from 1947 to 1977. Residency started with a landed immigrant stamp when she crossed into Canada for the purpose of residing there.

        She also could have attained Canadian citizenship as a landed immigrant after being married for one year to a Canadian citizen. There may be a possibility that father Cruz obtained a expedited passport as a Cuban refugee, but that’s conjecture on my part.

        Like

        Reply
  7. Bull Durham says:
    February 8, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    How much land is being taken? A strip along our border. It’s for National Defense and the landowners don’t want to secure the border? The Mexicans will grab it all back like it was 1840.

    You get to be patriotic and paid for the land. You keep murderers and drug dealers and coyotes leading illegals across your land.

    What the hell is the problem?

    You might have an ISIS war along the border in another year or two. Then what?

    Do they have any comprehension of reality down there? I guess not. Bush W., Rick Perry, Ted Cruz. Those are their idea of brilliant.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  8. Sentient says:
    February 8, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Trump wants to bring back waterboarding. That’s fine, as long as they start with Cruz.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  9. dizzymissl says:
    February 8, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    That lady at the rally was right about Cruz 😂😂😂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  10. Renee Blythe says:
    February 8, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    If they hold office in Washington…they are corrupt. It is that simple.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
  11. feralcatsblog says:
    February 8, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    Must give Cruz credit where credit is appropriate.

    Ted Cruz, on whether women should be required to register for the draft:

    Let me say something about the debate last night. You know, it was striking that three different people on that stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military. I didn’t have an opportunity to respond to that particular question. But I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was: “Are you guys nuts?” Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think, is wrong. It is immoral. ( and it is also stupid)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    • AMD_Afficionado says:
      February 8, 2016 at 11:59 pm

      So Cruz wants women to be able to hold any position in the US military, like men, but-unlike men-not be required to register for the draft?

      IIRC, the only reason that women weren’t required to register when the military was opened to them was because they were barred from holding certain positions in it. Now that argument is null and void and they should be drafted too.

      Based on his statement here, Cruz should be against all positions in the military being open to women. However, that too would be a position of dubious legality, and inequality, supporting socially engineering the military 😦

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • KBR says:
        February 9, 2016 at 5:35 am

        A question:
        Is “equality of rights and responsibilities” taking everybody that could be involved under consideration?

        When men are drafted its one citizen at a time. If a newly-pregnant woman is drafted, it’s drafting an infant along with its mother, thus two citizens, with one underage.

        When a male soldier is killed it is one life, when a female soldier is killed there could be two lives.

        We cannot say life begins at conception and not include the potentially-newly-conceived as a subject under discussion in the issue of drafting women.

        We cannot object to the killing of the unborn in one situation and not in the other.

        Just a conundrum I have not seen discussed. Something to consider.

        Like

        Reply
  12. georgiafl says:
    February 8, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    Tomorrow, we will see if the voters of NH respond with the same naiveté as Iowa voters to Cruz’s dirty political tactics and posing as a Christian, while lying about other candidates and his own record.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  13. kinthenorthwest says:
    February 8, 2016 at 11:54 pm

    Ted Cruz In Hot Water Over Possibly Illegal Fundraising Letter Sent To Voters

    By Jason Easley on Mon, Feb 8th, 2016

    A complaint has been filed against Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz after the Republican may have violated Texas state law with an illegal fundraising letter.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/08/ted-cruz-in-hot-water-over-possibly-illegal-fundraising-letter-sent-to-voters.html

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
  14. EyesWideOpen2016 says:
    February 8, 2016 at 11:57 pm

    great video. Reveals all the questions (ONLY pointed towards Donald Trump, mind you) are for only the purpose of making Donald look bad, not because this is a major campaign issue to voters. But it makes great drama “Oh the poor widow in Atlantic City!”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  15. kinthenorthwest says:
    February 9, 2016 at 12:28 am

    The word “Pussy” has been used so freely in this election, that I bet one could find some video where every single candidate used it at one time.
    In my opinion I do feel that Cruz is the biggest cheating pussy around blaming everyone else for his cheating lying ways.
    Trump Says “Pussy” Live in New Hampshire. Trump Indirectly Calls Ted Cruz a Pussy. God Bless You Mr. Trump.
    http://www.americassaviour.com/#!donaldtrumpsayspussy/n1lc2

    Like

    Reply
  16. Bob says:
    February 9, 2016 at 2:07 am

    Ted Cruz … All hat and not cattle …….. or, all talk and no action! I haven’t seen him putting up the first fence post! ~~~~~~ Now, it’s #Trump’s turn!

    Like

    Reply
  17. KBR says:
    February 9, 2016 at 5:22 am

    I have a question. Could two US citizens who were married in the USA but lived in Britain, in late ’60’s-early ’70s, get a divorce in Britain? I.e. Could a late ’60’s British divorce court sever US legal marriage bonds of US citizens?

    Or would at least one of the pair have to become a British citizen to get a British divorce at that time?

    Still something odd about mama Cruz having a US marriage and British divorce, and after divorce in Britain, a baby who died…(short timespan)…before heading back across the pond..NOT to the USA, but to Canada…where British citizens had special immigration rights but US citizens had more difficulty…to so quickly marry a Cuban?

    Did mama Cruz have British citizen status? (Was she married between 1st hubby and Cuban hubby, however briefly?) Could divorce law hold a key to solving this mystery?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • NCPatrick says:
      February 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

      Hmmmm … you raise very good questions KBR. Let’s think about it: there must be a reason that Cruz has chosen to seal his and his family’s records. Given the fractured line Ted has given about his mother and father, there is obviously a lot more to it than he wants known, now or ever. I keep thinking of the scared look on his mother’s face in that very brief video Cruz put out where he says she prays for him all day long. Ha! Maybe praying the truth won’t come out.

      There is a meme out there that Mom and Dad Cruz were not married when Ted was born, and that could be because neither of their divorces were finalized prior to Ted’s birth. Hey, that happens every day of the week so could be explained I assume.

      Like

      Reply
      • ladysforest says:
        February 9, 2016 at 11:43 am

        There was a reporter who spoke with Mr. Wilson, mamma Cruz’s first husband; “Wilson confirmed one fact critical to Cruz’s presidential campaign, that Cruz’s mother never became a British subject while she was working in London. Despite his many years in Britain, Wilson said he too never became a citizen of the United Kingdom.

        Wilson makes a brief appearance in Cruz’s book, A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America, which was published last year.

        “In 1956, my mom married her first husband, a mathematician named Alan Wilson,” Cruz wrote. The couple moved to London in 1960 after a few years working in the U.S., and Cruz revealed something of a bombshell: his mother had given birth to a son, Michael Wilson, in 1965, who had died a crib death later in the year.

        Cruz wrote about her mother’s devastation: “Losing Michael to crib death broke my mother’s heart, and had a profound effect on her, so much so that I never even knew that I had had a brother until I was a teenager and my mother told me the story.”

        Cruz added, “And the heartbreak also ended her marriage.”
        Well, that was bullshit. That child was born and died in 1966. And the child was NOT Wilson’s. They had been divorced about three years before. Not long after the child died, Eleanor moves back to TX (?) meets Cruz, then they go to Canada in Dec of 1967. She resides in Canada until 1975.
        http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20160116-cruz-family-drama-mothers-first-husband-is-an-ex-pat-texan-in-london.ece

        Like

        Reply
  18. archer52 says:
    February 9, 2016 at 9:14 am

    He never denied eminent domain. He said you can’t use the power of government to let one private entity take land from another private entity so the first private interest can make money. Then the government gets MORE TAX money from that first party so it can enrich itself.

    Does anyone get the difference here?

    Government takes land to build an interstate that serves ten of millions of travelers a year= good.

    Government takes land from people to build a fence to stop illegal immigration, drug trafficking and terror attacks that save hundreds of thousands of victims= good.

    Government takes land from people because a corporation- tied into that government by special interests and payoffs- wants to build something and make millions in private profit, and turn the property into a higher taxing source so the government can make more money= bad!

    Seriously, at some point just let it go! Trump was wrong to use the power of government to seize property for his personal gain. Trump was wrong. I know it’s hard guys, but he’s not perfect, and his perception of right and wrong here is a bad one.

    The SCOTUS agreed with him by twisting the legal definition of eminent domain (ala Obamacare) and 43 states recoiled in horror and changed their laws to stop this very act. 43! States!

    If this was your land, and you said no to some development, would you be in agreement that the corporate heads could just payoff some idiot politician and by the force of government!! (cops, guns, tear gas, bulldozers) make you leave or die in place?

    So the OTHER GUY can make a buck?

    come on, it wasn’t even a hospital or a VA clinic or anything of general use, it was a casino!!!

    which went broke by the way…

    Enough. Dead horse.

    Like

    Reply
    • Emma Johnson says:
      February 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

      Then you would have to be against Bush, Kasich, and others was well. In Ohio here, Kasich was the push behind the casinos, with the idea that they would bring in added revenue, jobs etc. The properties taken to build them were given no compensation. He used the term that the houses were a “blight” on the community while saying they were doing a re-investing and revitalization program of that area. Yet there were people there who lived in the properties. I knew the properties and they were far from “blight”. Maybe to someone like Kasich or Bush and others gated communities they were. Trouble is, all on stage the other night, have advocated for ED, except for Carson. And yes, for personal use such as casinos, which do create jobs, revenues for the city and surroundings. I don’t like eminent domain, period. And I especially don’t like taking a Canadian company and allowing them to use eminent domain against America. Cruz is for this and yet he tries to hide that the Keystone Pipeline is a private endeavor. That’s what NH is fighting now as I understand it. Canada wanting to run electric lines across American citizens properties with eminent domain. No difference between the pipeline and the electric company. Since when were we for other countries coming in here and taking pieces of America?

      Like

      Reply
  19. archer52 says:
    February 9, 2016 at 9:22 am

    and while we are arguing over this, Obama is sending more troops into combat in Afghanistan?

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/obama-sending-hundreds-of-us-troops-back-to-afghanistan-to-fight-taliban-guess-theyre-not-our-friends-huh-barack/

    “…Hundreds of additional US troops are slated to deploy to a volatile province in Afghanistan to bolster the local military against a resurgent Taliban, the Guardian has learned.

    By month’s end, a force described as battalion-strength, consisting of mostly army soldiers, will arrive in Helmand province where US and UK forces have struggled in battles for over a decade to drive out the Taliban. …”

    With ROEs that will get them killed I’m sure.

    Like

    Reply
  20. sammyhains says:
    February 9, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    Interesting, in the debate clip with Cruz, he says Article I Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates Congress’s specific powers. So he certainly knows and understands that Congress is only given power for Naturalization by Article I Section 8, and not the power to declare foreign born children “Natural Born Citizens.”

    So Ted Cruz must know that according to the Constitution he claims to defend, he is a Naturalized Citizen, since his citizenship comes from an act of Congress pass in 1952.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  21. LiberatedCitizen (@LiberatedCit) says:
    February 9, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    This sums it up for me

    Like

    Reply
  22. Billy P says:
    February 11, 2016 at 8:36 am

    There’s a difference between eminent domain for a public project (which you need for an effective boarder wall) vs eminent domain for a private project.

    Like

    Reply
  23. Jake says:
    February 11, 2016 at 10:01 am

    So Cruz has been talking about building a wall long before Trump ever got into the picture.

    Like

    Reply
  24. macpipkin says:
    February 12, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    Do you people honestly not see the difference between someone using eminent domain to enrich themselves, or a private party and the use of eminent domain to build a legitimate government function such as a school or a utility?

    Donald Trump used the state government of New Jersey to try to move an elderly widow out of her home because he did not like the home so near to his hotel/casino and wanted to use the space for a limousine holding area.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w
Cancel

Connecting to %s