Lakewoodites for McCartney.

Lakewoodites for McCartney.

1. Welcome to the internet web log (blog) of Edward M. McCartney.

2. Caution. Because some persons to day (today) are so shallow, reckless, mentally lethargic, skittish, programmed, brutish, or incompatible with truth, that sometimes when the truth is presented that does not conform to their beliefs, almost like an house of cards they become offended, upset, and nearly collapse. [Consider I Kings 21:1-4 (verses one through four of the twenty and first chapter of the first book of the Kings in the scriptures) in the King James Version.] But some falsely accuse, or react violently. (Consider Exodus 20:16, John 3:19-21 and 8:12-59, Luke 23:23 and I Thessalonians 2:14-16.) Therefore such persons may choose the option of not continuing further in this blog: otherwise readers might open their minds and consider things that they presently do not believe, try (test) them, receive them if found to be right, and personally grow thereby. (Consider Isaiah 1:18.)

3. Prohibition. If any person will not receive valid information, or has not yet learned to receive correction, or disregards truth, or is seeking to be offended, or would act in a manner that is contrary to the scriptures and the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution, such persons are not welcome to continue any further in this blog, I’m sorry to say. (Normally I wouldn’t mind. But that is for my protection.) Whether you continue further in this blog or not, you are responsible for that which you think, say, and do, as I am for that which I think, say, and do. See Matthew 12:35-37 and Romans 14:12.

4. I claim to be exercising my God given liberty to write and speak what I think is the truth according to II Corinthians 3:17 and Zechariah 8:16-17, which is protected by three (3) constitutions, which are the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution, and section (§) 11 of article I of the constitution of the state of Ohio, and § 2 of article I of the constitution of the state of California.

5. An hatred of evil is right. See Psalm 97:10. But hating the truth is not wise. See II Thessalonians 2:7-14.

6. Presently I, Edward M. McCartney, am a candidate for Council-at-Large for the city of Lakewood, in the state of Ohio. Although I am an Independent, I am theocratic. According to my present knowledge, I’m sorry to say that there presently is no theocratic party in Ohio; but I think that there ought to be.

7. There are a few reasons why I decided to apply for the job of Council-at-Large. A reason that I will give here is that when I consider the somewhat ungodly direction of my city, state, and country, when viewed in the light of the holy scriptures, I think that there needs to be a change of course. Sadly too many of the present politicians have apparently turned a deaf ear to a voice for God’s will to be done in our earthy bodies as it is in heaven. Consider Deuteronomy 28:1-2 and Matthew 6:9-13.

8. Lakewood cannot take care of some of its problems until certain matters are handled upstream at the state and national levels. But the council can make resolutions to petition those higher governments for a redress of grievances.

9. Briefly I promote the law of God in the lives of the people, and in the governments. If you have the time and would like to know more, and can handle the truth, you are welcome to continue reading.

10. By the holy scriptures, (scriptures) I mean the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, best expressed in the King James Version.

11. By the law of God, (during this time of the new testament,) I basically mean the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is found in the four (4) books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, save (except) the sacrifice of animals, which was abrogated (nullified) by the new testament; for Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, according to Hebrews 7:12 and John 1:29.

12. Firstly it might help you to understand why I highly regard the scriptures in a meaningful way when some if not much of the present society ignores them. (Consider Psalm 9:17.)

13. I was trained up a Roman Catholic; but was taught the theory of evolution. I then became an agnostic when aged around sixteen (16) years. I became a Christian (noncatholic) believer in the Lord Jesus Christ when I was twenty (20) years old after three (3) things were proven to me, which are the following. God exists. (As a design has a designer, so the creation has a Creator.) Evolution is a fallacy scientifically. (Creatures reproduce after their kind.) The holy scriptures are credible. (Because of the amount of fulfilled prophecy, I see the scriptures to be reliable about matters that might not be easily discovered, such as salvation and damnation, heaven and hell, and every other subject taught in the scriptures, such as law and government.) Consequently I take the scriptures seriously, and seek to apply them to the real world without (outside of) the walls of church buildings, in addition to applying them in the church. (It might surprise some to wit how much resistance there is by some persons that claim to be Christians to applying the scriptures meaningfully. See I Corinthians 15:1-2 and James 2:17.)

14. Not to advertently step on toes, candidly I disagree with some of Roman Catholicism, because I think that some Catholic doctrines are unscriptural. I could write similarly about some Protestant denominations. I think that Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit of Christianity, although it is not totally wrong. (Counterfeits appear to be real.) I therefore do not take Roman Catholicism to be a denomination of Christianity. (That is doctrinal, not personal.) The scriptures are my authority. See Isaiah 8:20.

15. I did not explain my churchly doctrinal position in the previous paragraph, because that is a church or sectarian so called matter. Although I could explain my creedal position, I would promote nonsectarian theocracy politically, which I will attempt to shew (show) to be consistent with the United States’ constitution (which is not to be mistaken for what the present Supreme Court thinks).

16. I do not believe that the only places for the scriptures are church buildings and our homes. I believe that the scriptures are to have free course in all areas of our God given lives, such as our public schools, places of labour, and our governments, whether local, county, state, or federal.

17. At this point the phrase, the separation of church and state, might occur to some, believing that the American constitution teaches it. It is a reference to the initial part of the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution.

18. The Supreme Court of the United States was made by the constitution of the United States of America, which was made by men, which are creatures, which are descendants of a man and a woman that were created by the Creator, which is God.

19. Does an earthly court, made by a law of man, have the authority to imply or state indirectly or directly that the American people, or the various governments in America, or any entity, may take God (the Creator and our superior) or his law, or the rest of the scriptures, to be optional, or to disregard them? If you think that such a court has that authority, I would like to hear your explanation: otherwise you of course may continue reading.

20. What about that which some call the separation of church and state? Is it in the constitution? Yes: but not the American constitution. It is in the Soviet constitution. Article 52, of the constitution (fundamental law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is the following two (2) paragraphs.

Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

23. That constitution was adopted at the seventh (special) session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Ninth Convocation, on October 7, 1977.

24. Regarding the American constitution, some persons have commented about the first (1st) amendment by saying that it teaches the separation of church and state.

25. I will call the first sixteen (16) words of that amendment the religious freedom clause, which is a combination of the establishment clause, (first 10 words) and the free exercise clause (next 6 words). (If any one can correct me about what to call all 16 words, I request correction.) That is the following.

26. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

27. I think that another way to write the free exercise clause if it is to be written by itself is, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

28. Some Christians were concerned. In a letter dated for January 1, 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote them assuring them of their protection. He wrote of a constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. That wall, so called by Jefferson, was to protect the church from the state. (That does not necessarily mean that it was to keep Christian influence out of the government. Some walls have doors.)

29. Of the United States’ Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), Judge (Justice so called) Rutledge wrote a dissenting opinion. At times he seemed to mix, or he mixed, part [religion (thereof)] of the free exercise clause with the establishment clause, such as on page 44, but not always (See page 53.). (He was not the only judge on that court that did that.) But I err too. Mister Rutledge taught the separation of state and religion on page 60 as though that conforms to the constitution.

30. The people ought to obey a judge’s judgment. But if judges judge unjustly, that can cause the people to lack confidence in the judiciary, which can lead to problems, such as frustration. Therefore judges ought not to abuse their offices. Judges ought to be honest, and have the ability to be judicious and discriminate, and ought to have the character to practise those, especially in that high court that affects all of America. Judges ought to make diligent inquisition, and justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. (Consider Exodus 22:8-9, Deuteronomy 13:14; 16:18-20; 17:8-13; 19:18 and 25:1.) To ignore a court is to show that court contempt. Therefore what is it to ignore God?

31. Mister Rutledge apparently marginalised the scriptures or Christianity such that he appeared to believe that the church’s opinion ought to be kept to itself so that it doesn’t influence legislation in the real world without (outside of) the walls of church buildings. But is that what American history has? or, more importantly, is that what history [his (God’s) story] has?

32. Some Christian preachers used the Bible to help to foment the American revolution against the abusive British. (They were more loyal to God than to a flawed government, which conforms to the first of the ten commandments in Exodus 20:1-3.) That was taking the Bible seriously. (See James 2:22.) For that you may read, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution by J. T. Headley.

33. In 1782 the United States’ congress approved a Bible, published by Robert Aitken. The congress highly approved the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken as subservient to the interest of religion, and recommended that Bible to the American people. Although that was before the first amendment, it was consistent with that amendment; for that resolution was nonsectarian, and it was a real expression of the free exercise of religion or Christianity. Such a government cared for the people.

34. John Jay was the first chief judge (Chief Justice so called) of the Supreme Court of the United States. According to America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer, on October 12, 1816 John Jay said, Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

35. At this point one that would test that (which is well, in the light of I Thessalonians 5:21) might object to it by bringing up the constitutional prohibition of a religious test in article VI. A note with a constitution published by The Rutherford Institute stated that the American constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. When Chief Judge John Jay made his prochristian statement, that was twenty and eight (28) years after the constitution’s ratification. It would therefore seem reasonable to think that he probably had a reason to say that without fear of violating the constitution. I think that the men back then had a greater knowledge of history than to day’s people.

36. A book of European church history of hundreds of years provides us with some information. Such a book (of which I have read some) is the third (3rd) English edition of Martyrs’ Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght. On some of its pages, such as 430, 435, 443, and 445 – 447, it tells of doctrinal tests that Christians were given by Catholic prelates hundreds of years ago. If the Christians gave a scriptural answer rather than a Catholic answer, some times the Christians were tortured, then sometimes they were killed if the Christians continued in that manner. [That history is probably where the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments, of the eighth (8th) amendment, came from.] {In fairness to those Catholics, I assume that the intent was to give the heretics so called every opportunity to accept a way that those Catholic leaders thought to be right, lest those persons go to hell. I can appreciate that intent, if that was the intent. But I do not agree with any entity killing God’s children [Christians (See Romans 9:8 and Galatians 3:26.)]. See Matthew 24:9. And some Protestants did some killing for a doctrinal disagreement.} That is what I think was meant by prohibiting a religious test. I think that it was about creeds and doctrines, (sectarianism) not about whether a person was a Christian or not.

37. To further support that information about Europe’s dark age, when the word of God was not allowed to be disseminated publicly by the people by an earthly power, you may read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which is an abbreviation of the multiple volume, Acts and Monuments by John Foxe (shortened title). (Although I have not read either work, I have looked them over.)

38. Regarding the religious freedom clause, I have wondered about its wording; and I suspect that some of you have also.

39. One could wonder what an establishment of religion is. Let’s handle the word, religion, first. That word has been use variously. It has been used to mean a certain faith, such as Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam, or some other belief. But it has not always been used that way.

40. While reading some of our country’s history, I came across a letter by John Adams to his wife Abigail dated for September 16, 1774 about the first continental congressional prayer. Mr. Adams wrote to his wife that the men were divided in their religious sentiments. He then listed five (5) Protestant Christian denominations. It appears there that the word, religious, meant, Christian. There is more history that indicates to me that the word, religion, of the first (1st) amendment means, Christianity.

41. Regarding an establishment, I have heard of a business establishment, and a liquor establishment. Considering that, in the constitutional sense, regarding the establishment clause, it appears that an establishment of religion is a church, which is probably sectarian, which is a denomination of Christianity.

42. Regarding the word, respecting, considering some things, in the constitutional text being written about I think that, respecting, means favouring or preferring, indicating a bias or partiality.

43. With both divine and secular history to guide me, I think that the first ten (10) words of the first (1st) amendment mean, Congress shall not legislate to favour any denomination of Christianity more than any other Christian sect.

44. I therefore believe that the free exercise clause means, Congress shall not legislate to prohibit the unrestricted practise of Christianity. If the people are allowed to worship God and believe the Bible within the walls of church buildings, but not have God’s good guidance considered by legislatures or executives or judges, is that a free exercise of Christianity? Such marginalisation seems to me to be a limited exercise of Christianity.

45. What if our society ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, (some of which I think we ought to,) and told the judges thereof to keep their opinions to themselves? Would that be a free exercise of the government? No: that should limit decisions to court rooms, and be meaningless. Then to ignore the law of God when legislating or executing (enforcing) or judging is not only similar, it is worse; for that which proceeds from the Creator is of course higher than that which is issued by us creatures. We therefore ought to honour God by acting accordingly.

46. When baking, if you omit an important ingredient, it affects the product. So if the important guidance of the word of God is taken out of our society, do you think that that shall not affect our society?

47. Although the supremacy clause of the constitution’s article VI presents the constitution to be the supreme law of the land, it could be argued that that is only a law of man, and that God’s law is of course higher, without the obvious being stated. But perhaps some of to day’s Americans have gone so far astray, like much of the present Supreme Court, that it might be necessary for the obvious to be stated.

48. In the light of both secular and divine history, such as II Chronicles 7:4 and other scriptures, it seems reasonable to me to think that the free practise of the way of God is to take the scriptures in a meaningful way in all areas of our God given lives, such as our homes, churches, businesses, governments, entertainment and news media, et cætera.

49. Regarding government, the free exercise of religion or Christianity would be to allow God to influence our legislation by seeing his expressed will in the scriptures, considering it, giving it more weight than the opinions of men, (See Isaiah 40:15.) and making that to be the foundation of our laws, if not executing (enforcing) the scriptures or judging according to the scriptures.

50. I think that the establishment clause prohibits congressional sectarian favouritism regarding legislation. The free exercise clause allows Christianity to be practised freely (without limitations). It is therefore my opinion that Bible reading in public schools, without sectarian comments, (that was done in this country,) does not violate the constitution, nor does posting the ten commandments on public property so called (which is on the earth that God created). That could provide children with good guidance, and make better persons. See Deuteronomy 6:1-9.

51. One of the things that is to be considered when legislating or judging is weighing the amount of damage against the benefit. In my mind school crime is detrimental, some or much of which came after forbidding a certain type of Bible reading in our public schools. But previously when there was the aforementioned Bible reading, there was more peace and obedience. That benefit of course is weightier than the other, (no Bible reading) which shows a lack of weight. (See Isaiah 40:17.) For that reason alone, the public school children ought to be allowed to read the Bible without sectarian comments.

52. If a nonchristian child or his parents don’t like that, it means that they don’t like that. But to consider that to have more weight than the desires of Christians is injudicious according to my opinion. What about our Christian desires? What about what we don’t like, such as school crime, and consequently societal crime? But more importantly, what about that which our Creator, and Saviour or Judge, desires?

53. Pertaining to the congress making a law respecting religion, does the constitution of the United States prohibit that? (Does the United States’ constitution prohibit the congress making a law respecting religion?)

54. That question is open to any person within or without a government at any level. You can refer to court decisions that give explanations so called for your information. But a lesson that can be learned from The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen is that if an explanation so called is attached to a matter, some of the people (including judges) will believe almost any thing. That question does not pertain to deceptive court decisions. It is about the constitution. I think that presently we are being told that the government has to be secular, and may not have a religious purpose, or may not promote religion. Can any person show from the constitution that the congress may not legislate to favour religion?

55. The straw that broke the camel’s back for me that moved me to ask the question, in paragraph 53, is footnotes 56 and 57 of Judge Rutledge’s opinion of Everson v. Board of Education. Those two footnotes can be found on page 61 of volume 330 of United States Reports. If you would like an hint to answering that question, you may look at those footnotes. That which President James Abram Garfield spoke of pertaining to sectarianism was right. But Mr. Rutledge wrote against the support of religion. Does the constitution prohibit governmental support of religion? Does it prohibit that, or does it prohibit something else? Look at the constitution. Look at what it says, and what it doesn’t say.

56. Although one could say that the American constitution provides for the separation of church and state in two (2) ways, (that it protects the church from the state, and the state from being dominated by any Christian sect,) I have noticed that when many persons use that phrase, (the separation of church and state) they mean to exclude Christianity from the government. And that, dear people, is not only unconstitutional, more importantly, it is unscriptural. See Romans 13.

57. Although it might not be wrong to protest (promote or favour) the separation of church and state so called by many, because that phrase is often used to exclude a Christian influence in our every day lives I do not usually if ever say that I support the separation of church and state.

58. I have met persons that would keep religion or Christianity out of government. I suppose that they have their reasons. One could be that some persons which pretend to be Christians, and might think that they are in Christ, act in such an untoward manner that they move observant persons to keep religion separate from the government. Such persons are a stumblingblock. See Leviticus 19:14. That is one reason why counterfeit Christians ought to be exposed, and made accountable. But to exclude God (the Creator) from government is not wise. See Mark 7:6-13.

59. The Supreme Court giving long explanations so called, mixing some of the free exercise clause with the establishment clause, and muddying the waters about the religious freedom clause, seem to be ways to use an amendment (that forbids congressional sectarian favouritism, and provides for religious freedom) to marginalise and ignore that which God said. (Remember Psalm 9:17. God can judge America. His judgment on our country has probably begun.) That’s clever. That seems to be done by persons that hate God. According to the ten commandments, (that have been banned from public schools when prominently displayed in an exclusive way,) some persons hate God. See Exodus 20:5. And for decades too many of the American people have acted like that (discounting the law of God, and the rest of his word) is legal, (because the Supreme Court decided it that way,) and that there is little or nothing that we can do about it.

60. Will you allow a court to turn America away from God?

61. If the judiciary doesn’t receive historical information showing the need for God’s word in our state of society, (See Matthew 4:4.) then we the people, through our elected representatives, may consider a theonomic amendment to the American constitution to show that that constitution is under the law of God and the rest of the God given scriptures, or to make the Bible prevail when the inferior laws of creatures conflict with the superior law and word of the Creator.

62. Some might wonder why this [theonomy, (God’s law) and a proper understanding of the first amendment] is important. By reading Deuteronomy 28, and examining America in that light, (See Psalm 119:105.) that ought to give you an answer.

63. If you don’t see it after that, (That was not written in a denigrating tone, dear reader.) for at least one example you might examine the outrageous Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003), in the light of Genesis 19, Leviticus 20, II Kings 17, and Romans 1.

64. Beside that, my opinion is that that case was misjudged (if not maljudged) according to the constitution; for both the white male and black male violators (Based on Leviticus 18:22 of God’s law, those actors are violators.) were equally protected from a penalty or punishment until there was a due process according to section one (1) of the fourteenth (14th) amendment.

65. Some persons believe that God doesn’t belong in the government. They may read I Kings 8, and other scriptures.

66. Some of the electorate act as though persons running for public office have to please only the voters. That is partly correct. But what the voters need to understand is that we all (whether the people, politicians, or preachers) need to please God first. See Exodus 20:1-3, and other scriptures.

67. If the people are not living rightly before God, but expect honest honourable politicians, that is not consistent; and we reap that which we sow. See Galatians 6:7. A bad people deserve a bad ruler. See I Samuel 8.

68. For persons that think that I am being too narrow, they may read Deuteronomy 13, Matthew 7:13-14, John 10 (chapter ten) and 14:6, and I John 5:21.

69. For persons that think that I ought to consider various persons more, and disregard God, they may read Romans 1:25, Genesis 1:1, and other scriptures.

70. For persons that have not taken the time to read the Bible, they may read John 5:39, and search the scriptures. We still have the freedom of the press.

71. If we the people do not live rightly before God, of which I am sometimes guilty, (Consider Romans 3:23 and 6:23.) and if we make bad decisions, we shall get that which we deserve. Blame yourself, if guilty, before blaming the politicians.

72. There are basically three (3) steps to improving this world which the Christians (which are the light of the world) ought to heed, or the false ones (See II Corinthians 11:26.) that claim to be Christians. Firstly a Christian is to live rightly before God. Secondly he may then correct the church, when the church is not submitting to God’s will expressed in the scriptures, by practising church discipline. Thirdly the corrected, disciplined and cleansed church may then have the right to advise the world about how to improve without being dismissed for hypocrisy. See I Corinthians 14:40, Matthew 7:1-5; 5:23-24; 18:15-18, James 5:16, Luke 17:3, I Corinthians 5 & 6, (chapters five and six) Matthew 5:14, I Peter 4:17-18, Leviticus 26, and other scriptures.

73. The churches ought to establish church courts if they haven’t, and ought to use them when persons act in a manner that is contrary to the scriptures. No one is exempt from church discipline. Abusive pastors are to be disciplined too: for they are leaders. (Consider Luke 6:39.) Every person is accountable. (Consider Romans 14:12.)

74. If the Christians in America live rightly before God, and if the people stop being selfish and inconsiderate, and learn to obey God, we can have a better republic.

75. If the supremacy of God’s law is indeed established in the United States, and if the American people obey God rather than their own carnal ways, other problems can be taken care of God’s way.

76. Some of our problems to day are immorality, [such as fornication, adultery, and sodomy (homosexuality)] racial affliction, (which can be divine judgment against a people that disobeys God,) crime, such as rape and pederasty, and financial. Obeying and enforcing the divine law can take care of most if not all of those problems. See Leviticus 18, Joshua 23, Judges 2 and 3, Deuteronomy 17, Genesis 34, Ecclesiastes 8:11, Judges 19 and 20, Matthew 18:6, Proverbs 11:1, Exodus 22:25, Deuteronomy 15:1-11, and other scriptures.

77. If you have questions, comments, disagreements, or corrections, and would like to talk about them, you may look me up in the telephone book, and call me. It takes time to solve problems. Those which won’t take the time to do that are too busy. And if you think that you (a creature) know better than the Creator about how to govern his creation, I might listen to what you have to say. I am for living and governing the best way, which is not the present way. I think that the Creator knows best about how to govern his creation, and the creatures that inhabit it.

78. It is not necessarily my intent to displease many persons if any. It is my intent to inform. The duty of a witness is to tell what he knows. Our society can be improved by those which do well being complimented, and those which do badly being contested, and provided with proper guidance. We creatures have a duty under our Creator to speak the truth about all matters every where. See Leviticus 19:11.

79. In John 8:32 Jesus said, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

80. Establishing a solid and right foundation for a society is wise presently, and for the future. Attempts to destroy such a foundation can be detrimental. (See Psalm 11:3 and Proverbs 14:34.) A good foundation for a society is God’s word. Building upon that by truth makes for a safe and beautiful society. Otherwise the foundation can be faulty. And the building of such a society (by lies) can be or is dangerous and ugly. See John 1:1,14, Matthew 7:24-29; 24:35, John 17:17, Psalm 127:1, Revelation 11:15; 22:15; 21; (chapter twenty and one) 22:14.

81. In Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 it is written, Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

82. Thanks to you for taking the time to read this, and to ponder these matters.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on the first day of the month of September in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ two thousand and nine.

Originally posted on August 26 anno Domini 2009.

This sixth (6th) edition was revised on December 8 A. D. 2009.

The name of the campaign committee was, Lakewoodites for McCartney., which was opened on April 29, 2009, and terminated on December 8, 2009. Any reference to a person other than the former candidate is not necessarily to be taken to be an endorsement of the former candidate by that person.  Thanks to the internet service at, which does not necessarily endorse this blog, or the former candidate.  2009.09.01.1q.


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 )

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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: