TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11)

©2011 jbjd

(04.10.11):  See update at bottom.

Several well-read blogosphere pundits, among them Ben Smith at Politico, have been soundly outplayed by Donald Trump in the Obama birth certificate round robin; and for that, I have to give “The Donald” his props.

Donald Trump, a salesman in the mold of P.T. Barnum – “There’s a customer born every minute” – is selling himself once again by reprising the guise of a possible Presidential candidate.  Trump’s White House con began 24 years ago:  How The Donald discovered that pretending to run for president can be good for business

This time around, he fixes his faux pitch to head the Executive branch of government, on a new gimmick:  President Obama’s birth certificate.  At first, I scoffed at the tactic of focusing the campaign on producing a document he claims would establish Obama’s Constitutional eligibility.  Because in so doing, he only confirmed a craven compulsion to hog publicity, this time trivializing the otherwise somber issue of election fraud that corrupted the 2008 general election cycle.   In other words, I thought his antics undermined real attempts underway for some time now, to expose actual crimes committed by Mr. Obama and his sales and marketing team, during their bona fide con to occupying the Oval Office.

But even though I have identified and initiated many of these efforts to ‘out’ the crimes of Team Obama which, on first glance, I thought were being trivialized by his campaign; before I finalized the original version of this article, events occurred which caused me to change my mind.  Indeed, after closer inspection I am not at all angry at “The Donald” for potentially gumming up the works.  Because whether he intentioned, by engaging in this latest sales initiative, he not only has exposed some of the intricacies of document identification which have been the subject of many articles posted here on “jbjd” – “Certificate” versus “Certification,” for example, or “issuing authority” – but also simultaneously has ‘outed’ the complicity of the press in giving Obama’s deceit on this front, a blanket pass.  And I have to give props where these are due.

As I have stated all along, the main reason for going after those D’s who committed election fraud viz-a-viz swearing to state election officials in applicable states,which are those states with ballot eligibility laws; that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS notwithstanding they had failed to ascertain whether he is a NBC, just to get these officials to print his name on the ballot, is this.  Get the attention of Congress.  Because  under the Constitution, the way to get rid of an ineligible President (for criminal acts related to his ineligibility) is through Impeachment, carried out by Congress.  But many legislators have reassured their frantic constituents, in writing, ‘don’t worry, Mr. Obama is eligible for the job.’  So, how do we get them to change their minds?  I anticipated that when confronted with the well-documented possibility, Obama’s eligibility has been a scam all along, (and no longer able to get away with insisting otherwise) the House would introduce Articles of Impeachment so as to enable the Senate to get on with eligibility hearings.

I hoped to trigger this ‘awareness’ through the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.  But if Trump’s shenanigans effect Impeachment hearings, more power to him.

So, what aspect of his birth certificate campaign will compel sufficient scrutiny of Obama’s election fraud so as to trigger Impeachment?  The fact that the press is giving Trump’s efforts in this regard more scrutiny even before any decision to run; than they did Mr. Obama’s, on his march all the way into the White House. The disparity is striking.  And, as a result, the only pundits who at this point cling to the laughable insistence, Obama has already proven, he is for real; expose themselves as paid shills of the O.D. party.

Take Ben Smith at Politico, whose attempts at satire hardly disguise the acknowledged impossibility of equating an on-line electronic image produced by the person whose name appears on that image; with an official hard copy document produced by the “issuing authority.”

Trump fails to produce birth certificate

Donald Trump made headlines earlier today when he provided what he said was a copy of his birth certificate — but a quick check reveals it’s actually not an official document.

The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.

But after several New York City-based readers contacted POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, her call to city officials revealed that an actual birth certificate, which is issued by the Department of Health, would have the agency’s seal and also a signature of the city registrar – neither of which the Trump document has. Officials said the city Health Department is the “sole issuing authority” of official birth certificates in New York, and that the document would clearly say so, and “city officials said it’s not an official document.”

It appears instead to be a hospital “certificate of birth,” meaning the piece of paper the hospital gave to his family saying he was born. Such a document typically has the signature of the hospital administrator and the attending physician.

Trump lawyer and advisor Michael Cohen didn’t respond to Haberman’s question about the document.

Trump’s mother, it should be noted, was born in Scotland, which is not part of the United States. His plane is registered in the Bahamas, also a foreign country. This fact pattern — along with the wave of new questions surrounding what he claims is a birth certificate — raises serious doubts about his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

UPDATE: On a second attempt, Trump produces what appears to be a real one.

After that analysis, why would anyone accept Mr. Smith’s apparent continued belief, the COLB image that is the centerpiece of Obama’s paid political electronic ad campaign is real?  And, by continuing to insist Obama is for real, why does he now definitively expose himself as a paid shill or, in the alternative, a fool?  Because if he admits he is wrong about Obama’s on-line COLB – and, according to the accreditation in the footer, this image is now the property of the DNC Services Corporation – then, he also admits he participated in efforts to throw the 2008 D Presidential primary to a candidate who was Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Barack Obama’s Constitutional con hinged on the public’s buying into his “Fight the Smears” web site, the focal point of which electronic advertising platform was the photographed mockup of a redacted Hawaiian COLB, conceived and copyrighted in 2007, more than 6 (six) months before the launch date, in June 2008.

If only Hillary Clinton hadn’t been such a strong contender for the D Presidential nomination, the FTS roll-out could have been delayed forever.

Questions as to Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS likely would have  remained largely unasked and certainly, as a result, unanswered if the 2008 D Presidential nominee wannabe and his accomplices could have confiscated enough pledged delegate votes through the disproportionally weighted and then subsequently co-opted caucuses by February’s Super Tuesday, to make running away with the nomination a(n eventual) fait accompli.  Instead, even after March 4, when both TX and OH voters handily chose her over him, his agents were still fertilizing the false meme to D’s throughout the country, Hillary Clinton had no chance to win the nomination.  Including the press.

Like Ben Smith, at Politico.

In 2008, Ben Smith, Carrie Budoff, and Jonathan Martin were named in the byline of an article appearing on March 8, just after Clinton had taken the TX, OH, and RI primaries.  The article featured the individual opinions of each with regard to one of the 3 (three) candidates remaining in both the R and D primaries: Obama, Clinton, and McCain.  But the introduction to these individual pieces is not specifically attributed to any one of the 3 (three) authors.  This unattributed introduction contains the following line:

Sen. Barack Obama will need a new strategy to defend his narrow delegate margin.

Then, in the segment on Hillary Clinton, under just Mr. Smith’s byline, comes this:

But Clinton also faces obstacles, and not just the daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead.


Which is it, “narrow delegate margin” or “daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead”?  Well, let’s look at the figures. Going into the contests she won on March 4, (even) the NYT reported Obama was only 86 pledged delegates ahead of her, or less than .04% of total delegates required at that time to win the nomination!

As I have said before, Obama’s financial backers knew if their agent was to secure the D Presidential nomination, the D primary had to end as early as possible.  Because the more time this flawed candidate remained in the national public eye, the more scrutiny he had to endure.  Including questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job.  Until finally, with the primary/caucus season finally ended and no clear winner in sight, the candidate was finally compelled to concede the rising wave of questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, and do damage control.

The FTS ad was desperately released in June 2008 to stem the late spring ineligibility tide only because even the cadre of well compensated co-conspirators fixed to rig August’s nominating convention were unwilling to publicly endorse the man if the country still doubted he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.

Gambling that the obvious political ad would sufficiently distract the public from the facts, paid off.  Three years later, people were still claiming Obama’s birth certificate is posted on line.  Plus, when they were questioned by constituents as to Obama’s eligibility, the advertisement provided both ignorant and dishonest politicians alike, with plausible deniability.

But no more.  Because thanks to Donald Trump, everyone, including Ben Smith, now knows, which on-line ‘document’ at least appears to have all of the attributes of a real birth certificate.  And which does not.

(04.10.11):  Update.

My, my, my. It would appear that I was right to come down on the side of the birth certificate showing put on by Mr. Trump.  Cue the ‘MSM’ with  gift wrapped disinformation that confirms, he has hit his mark.

Michael Isikoff, posting today at MSNBC on-line under the moniker “National investigative correspondent,” apparently is among those reporters who continue to assume that anyone still reading the drivel produced under a purported ‘news’ banner like MSNBC; is either too stupid or too gullible, or both, to discern fact from hype.   How else to explain his latest article, Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims in which he now seemingly tries to redeem those same HI election officials who failed miserably in 2008 to parse their validation of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS sufficiently so as to assuage genuine concerns the man might not even be a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born.  jbjd, BIRTHER

Especially Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the ex-Director of the HI State Health Department.

Isikoff claims in his article, this time around, Dr. Fukino has clarified, via an admission, that before making those statements in 2008, she had unlawfully accessed the protected privileged confidential records of Barack Obama without first obtaining either a written waiver of liability from Mr. Obama (or his legal representatives) for such otherwise unlawful conduct or, written instructions permitting her to publicly advertise what she had learned from this unlawful breach.

(Mr. Isikoff did not actually refer to this peek at Obama’s birth records as illegal.  But, if what he wrote about Dr. Fukino’s conduct is true then, she did break the law.)

Here are just a couple of ‘facts’ Isikoff reported in this story which those of you regularly reading “jbjd” already know signal his information sounds fishy.

  • He says FactCheck confirmed 2 contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements.  (But see, for example, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’)
  • He says when Dr. Fukino was Director of HI’s Department of Health, before making a public statement as to Obama’s HI birth,  “she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.”  However, for some unknown reason, he fails to provide readers with the name of that state official.
  • He ‘reports’ Dr. Fukino claims she saw “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” … located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health.”  The logical inference then, is that this bound Certificate is indexed in some fashion, by number or letter or a combination of both.  And that such index number can be verified at least as to the volume she describes.  However, the only document Isikoff links in his article, is that same COLB which is the centerpiece of the FTS paid political advertisement, the one with the identifying index number prominently redacted. DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)
  • He reports that “Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.”  Again, for some reason, Mr. Wisch fails to provide any identifying information that would aid retrieval.  And Mr. Isikoff fails to point out Mr. Wisch’s omission to his readers.

In sum, while I found very little basis for the descriptor “Investigative” before the moniker “reporter” in Mr. Isikoff’s byline; I was certainly entertained by his failed efforts to discredit the ever rising crescendo of non-believers now challenging the authenticity of anything closely associated with Obama.

Including Mr. Isikoff and MSNBC.

P.S.  Question to Mr. Isikoff:  Given that your article points to the lack of identifying information available in the public domain that would allow people to physically inspect any of the documents mentioned therein; how do you suppose all of those prominent members of the D party who Certified in 2008 that Obama was eligible for office, to state election officials in applicable states, that is, states requiring candidates to be eligible for the office sought in order to get their names printed on the ballot; were able to ascertain in advance, he is a NBC?  (We have asked all of them but they refuse to tell us. See, for example, MEMORANDUM of COMPLAINT of ELECTION FRAUD against LT. GOV. BRIAN E. SCHATZ, ACTING in a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE as CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY of HAWAII; and REQUEST for INVESTIGATION by the ATTORNEY GENERAL of HAWAII, in ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM.)

13 Responses to TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11)

  1. Mick says:

    Have you made a template that applies to this section of the Fla. Election Code?

    Mick: Great find; but inapplicable. See, this law allows you to file a court challenge to the election of a candidate (within 10 (ten) days) on the grounds, that candidate is ineligible for office, and not that s/he is ineligible to appear on the ballot. But the citizen complaints I drafted explicitly exclude any charge that Obama is ineligible. Because we cannot prove that negative. However, we can make a strong circumstantial case, people lied when they guaranteed they had determined his eligibility to appear on the ballot in states that base this eligibility to appear on the ballot on the fact, the candidate is qualified for the job.

    And FL has no ballot eligibility laws. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Mick says:

      Again, your usual circular firing squad logic. If there is no judicial definition of nbc, as you insist, then on what basis could the states determine if Obama was qualified to be put on the ballot? The knowledge of what a nbc is is proven out over 200 years by many sources, most notably by the Well Known purpose of the requirement, which is to prevent foreign influence. If the prevention of foreign influence is the motive, (decisively evidenced by John Jays letter to Washington, Federalist #68, and St G. Tucker’s Commentaries) then how is it possible that one born of a foreign father w/ dual citizenship(at best) be eligible? It is certainly NOT proving a negative. Besides, the vetting of the candidates is the responsibility of Congress, not the judiciary, and their lack of vetting doesn’t mean that they don’t know what the definition is, just that they won’t apply it. Eligibility is an absolute. He either is or isn’t eligible, so it doesn’t matter whether the political parties vetted him or not, this will force the question to be answered. The whole basis of your approach is because citizens didn’t have “standing” to ask the question directly (supposedly), and this statute gives citizens standing.

      Mick: Enough claims without attribution. For example, you write, “[t]he vetting of the candidates is the responsibility of Congress, not the judiciary.” But as I spelled out in DEFINITION on DEMAND, that is incorrect.

      ‘Citizens’ can never have standing in the kind of legal challenge you envision, absent a Constitutional amendment relating to the role of Electors. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. kj says:


    We are indebted to Trump for putting the eligibility issue in the public forum. He gets some of the facts wrong, but realizes the legitimacy of the question.

    The following is off topic, but perhaps relevant at this time.

    You have researched the Secretary of State angle more than anyone else who I have encountered. You have also stated that individuals need to review their state’s laws in preparation to challenge the placement of Mr. Obama’s name on the primary ballot.

    Two questions:
    1) If there are no Democratic challengers to face Mr. Obama, will a challenge of Mr. Obama’s eligibility be considered? If he were to be removed from the primary ballot, there could be no Democratic presidential candidate. Could he, without running in any primary and as an unopposed candidate, be nominated at the convention?

    2) Mr. Obama is expected to file his federal papers today. Is there anything that can or needs to be done now to challenge his candidacy?

    kj: Regular readers of “jbjd” know, the place to start to get Obama’s name off the ballot even now, long before the ballot is printed; is TX. As for winning the nomination without appearing on the ballot, well, as I have indicated here many times, what else do you suppose is the real purpose of pushing state legislatures to adopt the NPVI?

    As far as I know, no state with a ballot eligibility law requires the SoS to vet candidates for ballot eligibility. But all this would take is a rule or regulation promulgated by the SoS in a ballot eligibility state (to carry out such existing ballot eligibility law). ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Kelly C. says:

    Yes, I’ve had to re-fill my popcorn bag a FEW times in the last few weeks! What a GREAT show! Trump is certainly opening the can of worms, and he is nobody’s fool! I love how the media (especially O’Reily) has been TRYING to discredit him, and miserably failing! Watching Whoopie go BONKERS was also a great joy to watch! LOVED IT! Donald may be a bit eccentric, but hey… he’s the Trump! He may not actually run for POTUS, but he is certainly bringing this issue into the lime-light it so richly deserves! My hat’s off to him! This issue will not go away, no matter how the media tries to hide it. And as always, jbjd, another GREAT article!

    Kelly C.: Yes, what a show from a great showman! I especially loved how he deflected criticism by reminding his audience, ‘I come from Wall Street, where we have some really skilled crooks.’ Bet Geithner and Bernanke et al. were not laughing at that one.

    The only trepidation I have is this. I hope people both familiar with these ‘birth certificate’ issues and those just learning, understand that the act of posting a copy of what resembles a birth certificate on the internet, does not make that image an official record generated at the time of birth. (I have to say, The Donald impressed even me by showing an actual document number which, presumably, could be traced!) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. azgo says:


    Great article! I also wasn’t too keen on Trump’s trumpets playing until he released his long form birth certificate.

    If you click on “See a larger version HERE.” below the B/C image on ABC’s article, “Take Two: Donald Trump Releases Official Birth Certificate”, you can see below the birth certificate a statement from the “issuing authority”;

    “Above is an exact copy of a certificate of birth registered,…”,


    A clear date of issue with the signatures would be helpful in determining when the Trump’s exact copy of the certificate of birth was actually issued. (There is an almost invisible stamp-like image at the upper left corner of the dark colored “Certificate of Birth” but is not legible enough to make out what it all says.)

    You are right, the Trump B/C issued by an “issuing authority” shows the image as being more real. The Trump B/C is also a computer image but shows the difference between a more real birth document and a candidate’s computer image displayed without a statement of being issued by lawful authority. This is why it is so important for states requiring birth documents of a candidate for ballot eligibility (ballot access) to have the document issued directly from the the lawful “issuing authority” to that state’s election official.

    David Axelrod and company have dismantled the 2007 copyrighted “Fight the Smears” web site as well as the FTS B/C page. The political ad format is no longer there. We shall see if FTS web site and the B/C page gets a new political ad format as being a new campaign or the web site and B/C image web page disappears completely. Either way the FTS 2007 copyright will probably disappear.

    Right now, to gain access to “Organizing For America”, which had a similar format and the same communication footer, requires only an email address and zip code as before the email address and zip code weren’t required to access the web site. I suspect OFA will have a new format also. Who knows, we will find out within a few hours or days.

    Also, P&E is reporting that the B/C image is missing from the article “Has Obama’s birth certificate been disclosed?”. I believe the B/C image of that article has been missing for at least a year if not more as well as the B/C link being dead.

    You say, “…paid shills of the O.D. party.”
    What is the O.D. party? Over Dosed party? Overly Drunken party? Obama,s Democratic party?

    azgo: Good thing we made screen caps of this stuff which became the documentary evidence supporting so many revelations as to the basic underpinnings of the fraud, huh. Now, when people claim his birth certificate can be seen on line, we have to ask, ‘Where, specifically?’ Let them explain why it’s no longer in the public domain.

    But even without the document image originally displayed in 2008 – hey, does this mean, no more ads are appearing across the bottom of videos playing throughout the internet sending people to FTS to see Obama’s birth certificate? – the question remains. What did the D’s who Certified his eligibility in 2008 use, to ascertain that eligibility?

    azgo, we got ’em, a long time ago. We just need to spread that word to enough people to matter. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. When I wrote “O.D. Party,” I was only thinking, both names deserve to be forever linked and tainted by each other.

  5. Al says:

    Hi jbjd!

    Yet another informative and interesting post I see. And as sharp as ever…cannot get any wooden nickles past you. Where my initial thoughts were, “Finally! here’s a high profile individual bringing attention to the elgibility issue”, I hope it doesn’t serve as a distraction to seemingly dilute waters already muddy enough. Press on with your continuous education and zeal, jbjd. Admire you, Azgo, etc. Safe travels through the holiday season.

    Al: We who have familiarized ourselves with the legal and factual points related to this birth certificate issue are all crossing our fingers that people do not become so sidetracked with Trump’s theatricality as to miss the real crime implicated by that image, which is ballot fraud.

    חג שמח to you, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. jimbrown says:

    jbjd, Your own post “definition on demand” seemed to suggest to me the only way to go forward– separate frpm the state initiatives — is to demand the birth certificate. Once this is revealed, it will spark a wider discussion of eligibility that has not been addressed in the courts as you say. As I have said elsewhere, I think Trunmp going public with this on Fox and getting a weekly commentary position coupled with O’Reilly and Beck not agreeing has a certain theater to it. O Reilly and Fox wanted access to Obama. The eligibility issue would have made that problematic. Now Fox owns this issue important to their viewers and seems to be ready to discuss it in the open just in time for the campaign season. It’s a win win. You can bet SOMEONE is paying to follow up on the all the good research work people like you and others have done on this issue.

    jimbrown: I hear you but, what does “demand the birth certificate” actually mean? For example, who defines what document is appropriate? Who will produce it? To whom?

    I have no interest in any documents produced now, by anyone. I want to know what documents, if any, existed in 2008, and were the basis for Certifications by various D’s to state election officials, Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the office. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. bob strauss says:

    jbjd hello, I saw this @ CW and thought you may be interested. Birth certificate?

    Comment at “The Post & Email”:

    “Dr Ron Polland says:
    Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 10:37 AM

    The image you posted above is not what Factcheck posted on June 16, 2008. In fact, your image (@ 450 x 442 pixels) is a direct reduction of the Fight The Smears image (585 x 575) generated by a PHP script.

    As I noted below, this 585 x 575 is the “OFFICIAL OBAMA BITH CERTIFICATE,” the significance of that designation cannot be understated.

    It means that the Obama Campaign/Administration only recognizes this image as Zero’s COLB. Not Factcheck’s image or photos.

    Factcheck had one of the five full-size images (2550 x 3300 pixels) in existence. Their copy is the closest to the original forgery, or should I say, their copy did not need to be trimmed, reduced, stretched, or otherwise manipulated.

    It did not come from the Obama Campaign. The first COLB posted on Obama’s Campaign website was actually in a PDF file first. Because that format is not conducive to displaying, they extracted the image from it as a 1024 x 1000 px JPG. It was made directly from the Daily Kos image, which was made from the Factcheck image.

    Politifact’s full-size images (two of which they had on their server but did not post) and two of’s image (two others on Politifact’s sister site), were also derived from the Factcheck image.”

    bob strauss: No analysis of the physical characteristics of an electronic image that is part of an on-line political advertising campaign piques my interest.

    Nothing the ‘analyst’ known as Ron Pollard writes piques my interest.

    Articles posted on that web site do not pique my interest.

    However, I find incredible that even after all of these years, and the complete de-bugging scattered throughout the “jbjd” blog, well-intentioned people remain so sidetracked on this trivial pursuit, at the expense of shoring up a compromised electoral process.


  8. bob strauss says:

    With the upcoming election, and Obama says he’s running again,is there going to be specific times, in the various states, when the eligibility of a candidate can be challenged openly? and will this work to derail a campaign of an ineligible Obama?

    bob strauss: I am going to give you an abridged answer now; but I will write more tomorrow.

    TX can compel Boyd Richie to declare Obama ineligible for the ballot, now.

    Several other states with ballot eligibility law, including GA, allow voters to challenge candidate names on ballots, based on ineligibility. (Think primary challenge.)

    In SC, we know, the party registers the candidate in the primary. Last time, Kathy Hensley, Treasurer, merely hand wrote, he is eligible. (Like HI, SC election law requires an explicit statement of eligibility for the job.)

    But if enough legislatures pass the NPVI, all bets are off. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Isabella says:

    I just finish reading a very interesting side:

    / :
    It’s incredible and frightening. The ” Falcon conspiracy” and the proof of 0bama certified copy of the Kenyan BC. Corruption and deceive of very important personalities, inclusive M.Romney.

    Isabella: Cannot be bothered to ‘investigate’ the link. Here’s an expression used in academia when research conclusions are based on unsound data. Garbage in; garbage out. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. devildog6771 says:

    Great post!

    devildog6771: Thank you. And welcome to the blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. […] see, for example,  TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11) and RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 LONG […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: