Fascism, By A Nose
June 28, 2012, 10:37 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

So Obamacare is upheld as a ‘tax’. The government can order people to purchase any good/service of its choosing as part of their ‘tax’ power. My opinion of this possibility was perhaps best elucidated here.

What can’t the government order people to do as part of its ‘tax’ power? The answer, clearly, is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Little did we know, the 16th Amendment was a stealth repeal of the U.S. Constitution.

Congratulations, progressives fucking fascists. You won today, fascists.

46 Comments so far
Leave a comment

so let me ask you something:

I go on the base assumption of:

fact: Society does not want to let people who do not have insurance die on the hospital steps, turned away because they couldn’t pay.

do you agree with that statement? I take it as a fact.

Now, stemming from that, since I am a fiscal conservative, BECAUSE we’re not willing to let you die on the steps, and we’re going to treat you anyway at our expense even if you have no insurance, I want you to have insurance.

Which is why I think it’s totally reasonable to force people to buy insurance.

Another perfectly reasonable alternatives would be for everyone’s ID to have a little code on it, and if you choose to “decline” insurance, then you get left for dead on the steps of the hospital when you can’t pay… but I get the impression Society doesn’t want that…


-KD – who definitely doesn’t consider himself progressive or fascist

ps – this also relates to Bloomberg’s large soda ban: if you want The State to treat your fat ass for obesity and diabetes, then The State is going to try to prevent you from becoming a fat ass… makes total sense: benefits come with restrictions…

Comment by kid dynamite

and note – my logic is philosophical – I have no basis in legal argument, and no interest in it.

Comment by kid dynamite

I understand your logic to be philosophical (or rather economic in a generic way) rather than legal, yes. So let’s say you have an ok argument for *wanting* the government to have this particular power. I will not go deeply into the economic/fiscal argument as to why, as you suggest, it might be a ‘good idea’ if the government had this power. That is because unlike you I *am* interested here in the legal argument, which was, whether we want them to or not, *does* the government have this power?

In theory, the powers the government has/doesn’t have are supposed to be limited by the Constitution – not by what we want/don’t want/have good arguments for. That is, I can come up with the best argument in the world as to why It Would Be Great If the government had the power to do XYZ, but if that power just isn’t in the Constitution, my argument shouldn’t matter. (Think of looking at a loan prospectus and debating whether there ‘should be’ covenants; they are either in there or they aren’t – whether It Would Be Good If there were covenants in some person’s opinion is irrelevant, or should be.)

This is a crucial part of what we used to think of as ‘limited government’. At least, it was part of the American fairy tale that, today, has once and for all been established as a fucking fraud.

What we have been told today is that our government is not limited in any real sense. The SC have accepted the argument that a certain power, even though it’s not constitutional by itself, can still be exercised as long as it is structured as a ‘tax’. The problem is that there is NO conceivable power that COULDN’T be structured as a ‘tax’ (example: eat your broccoli or pay a ‘tax'; worship Jesus or pay a ‘tax’) so as a result if this precedent holds there is no conceivable power our government may not exercise. There is no theoretical limit, then, on our government’s power, and that’s what makes the decision, and those who endorse it, fascist, whether that’s how they see themselves or not.


Comment by Sonic Charmer

ok i hear you. I guess it doesn’t bother me too much because i want the right thing to happen, and I think this is the right thing. Then again, your point is, I think “what if it’s not the right thing?”

I guess I’ll tackle that when I get to it…

ps – as a non-working married man who buys his own health insurance, I can’t begin to tell you how f*cked up the system is from top to bottom, which is another reason why I think it needs reform.

Comment by kid dynamite

SC: you wrote “My first comment: was this a big problem? Really? Do you have numbers? I doubt it. What made you convinced it was? ”

of course it’s a problem – it’s a HUGE problem…here’s just one article from a simple search, detailing ONE hospital’s costs:

In Texas alone, the number is $4Billion a year…

Comment by kid dynamite

I’m ready to stand corrected on that point (it’s not crucial to my argument anyway) but I’m afraid you’re citing numbers with no context. $4 billion out of what? What’s the denominator?

I also don’t understand how you expect the mandate to magically make that cost go away. Currently presumably we pay for free-riders (in a diffuse way), after those costs filter through hospitals, via our insurance premiums being higher than they otherwise would be.

After the mandate is in place, those free-riders will free ride off insurance companies directly, which the rest of us will pay for via…….insurance premiums being higher than they otherwise would be.

‘Insurance companies’ are not external aliens from space whom we can just squeeze for money infinitely. They are *us*. We still pay one way or another.

If this bothers us we should have thought of it before ‘we’ decided as a society on the EMTALA policy. Because, as you know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If a free-rider pays $800 a year for insurance and receives $50k worth of health care treatment that year then that difference was not created by magic, other people have made up the difference. The mandate will not make those costs go away, it will just make *shifting* those costs to the rest of us slightly more direct.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

‘I want the right thing to happen [regardless of whether or not it is constitutional], and I think this is the right thing’ is the antithesis of limited government, as I’m sure you can see. It’s also not exactly inconsistent with fascism; fascists always think they’re doing the right thing.

The theoretical question that interested me here was whether there was any principled limitation on what ‘we’ want, as expressed through government. We were all taught that there was. We were fucking lied to.

Because clearly, we do not have a limited government in any meaningful sense. And the problem with that isn’t even so much whether you are right about *this* thing being the right thing (I don’t think you are, but that’s beside the point and the argument has been hashed out at length); the problem is what happens when a Congress/President come along to do something you not only *don’t* think is the right thing but that they’re not even supposed to have the authority to do. Whatever theoretical basis there may have been to stop them has now been destroyed.

All they’ll have to do is structure it as a ‘tax’, and you won’t be able to say squat.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

so if you don’t think I’m right about this “being the right thing” then I think you have to provide a counterargument to my simple logic chain in my initial comment… I don’t think it’s beside the point, I think it’s precisely the point: insurance doesn’t work if its optional AND you let those who opt out still benefit. I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new here…

and yes – we agree on “the problem” in your second to last paragraph.

Comment by kid dynamite

Re: beside the point, let’s just say it this way, there are two issues on the table (1) can the government do X? (2) should the government do X? I absolutely maintain that if one’s answer to (1) is ‘No’ (which mine clearly is, here) then (2) is beside the point. See what I mean?

That said I’ll try to address your original argument. It has basically two prongs:

a) ‘We’ (‘society’) don’t wish to let people die for lack of ability to pay (you said ‘insurance’ but presumably you mean ability to pay; remember that ‘insurance’ is not the only way to pay for health care, the things are not synonyms). I guess I agree with this, and particularly since EMTALA from the mid-80s it has been the law that ERs cannot turn away those in urgent need of care based on ability to pay. (BTW I’m not sure that was a big problem happening in the first place, but whatever.) In a way, this makes your point moot: the thing you’re worried about is something that is already illegal.

b) But then you worry about the free-rider problem, that some of those who can’t pay will be free-riding off the rest of us in one way or another. This is absolutely true, but I don’t see how it’s avoided. After all, you’re the one who said ‘we’ Don’t Want To Let people die etc, well the price for that is that (for some people) you’re going to pay for their health care.

My first comment: was this a big problem? Really? Do you have numbers? I doubt it. What made you convinced it was?

The second odd thing about using the mandate as a ‘solution’ is that you are essentially reneging on a). After all, I thought you said that ‘we’ as a society wanted to be generous and not let people die if they couldn’t pay? But your solution is to make people pay? Huh? To quote one of the great thinkers of our time, that’s kind of like solving homelessness by forcing people to buy houses. ( At the very least, it’s rather odd that ‘our’ generosity takes the form of ‘you must pay’ – it seems to undermine the notion that we were doing this whole policy out of some supposed collective responsibility to each other.

But what it really boils down to is a claim on your part that this mandate is the *only* way to address that folks-not-really-in-need-being-free-riders problem (if it is a problem). But it isn’t. Traditionally, the way these charity cases were handled was via (drumroll) charity. Charity has more leeway to, and arguably is better at, handling free-riders. (See this post: So this defuses the claim that the mandate is necessary to address free-riders – it doesn’t hold water. As a result, I don’t see what you’re left with in defense of it.

Again, that’s all beside the point though; even if I agreed it was a Good Idea, it’s simply not one of our government’s limited, enumerated powers. Of course, that’s not stopping them, so there you have it, we clearly don’t have that kind of government, we have an unlimited, totalitarian fascist government.


Comment by Sonic Charmer

“the problem is what happens when a Congress/President come along to do something you not only *don’t* think is the right thing but that they’re not even supposed to have the authority to do.”

That’s really not a problem.

The bureaucracy is under the same control as the press and the universities – and all institutions that are responsible for deciding what people think (blogs like this one are a drop in an ocean). Nothing will ever be done that people don’t think should be done.

What will be done is exactly what people think should be done. Of course, what that is will be disastrous because they’ll think that all kinds of insane things should be done.

Comment by Steve Johnson

“What will be done is exactly what people think should be done.”

True enough. As it happens, what people think should be done is fucking fascist, and so those people are fucking fascists.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

Wow, that is some fiscal conservatism; the government can control your whole life, cuz they know what is better for you than you do.

Your logic may be “philosophical”, but it completely ignores the definition of words and whole categories of ideas.

You are a tremendously brainwashed individual.

Comment by

good talk, thanks, you didn’t argue with a single point of my pretty simple logical chain.

so let me simplify further:

1) do you want to pay for the medical care of people who don’t have insurance?

I do not.

So there are two obvious solutions: 1) refuse to treat people who don’t have insurance, or 2) require that everyone has insurance.

I don’t think that society is willing to do the former, hence the latter is pretty reasonable, and has nothing to do with the “government controlling your whole life cuz they know what is better for you than you do”

as I mentioned, if you think that you know better than the ‘Gubmint and don’t need insurance, that’s great – we’ll code your id “DO NOT TREAT” if you then can’t pay for needed care, and we’ll let you die on the hospital steps.. That’s totally cool with me – but pretty unrealistic too…

Comment by kid dynamite

Here’s the thing kid dynamite. Let’s say that someone proposed euthanizing 130,000 elderly patients per year because they’re not paying their bills and the hospitals can’t afford to treat them*.

Now, is this an outrage?

That depends. If it’s done by a government run health care system, no – because it will never be reported as an outrage. People don’t give a damn in any organized way about any policy unless someone organizes them to do so. We have Obamacare not because of your logic but because the press decided to report on the situation as unsustainable.

* Yeah, that happens:

No one cares – it’s reported in the Daily Mail which means that everyone can ignore it because it turns on their partisan systems. Of course a doctor who is involved in the process is making the claims and he’s free to speak, right? Unfortunately only the Daily Mail chooses to report about it. Unfortunate, that.

Comment by Steve Johnson

Oh, by the way, great post, SC. I linked it at Astute Bloggers.

Comment by

dueling side thread to my own other comment thread, SC: is it fascist to require people who drive cars to buy auto insurance?

Comment by kid dynamite

That line of argument has been discussed at great length, but to reiterate:

Unlike ‘existence/breathing’, driving cars on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Apples/oranges.

There is also the (theoretical) important, at least to me, fact that auto-insurance mandates are state and not federal. It may be that the states have the power to mandate insurance, but that doesn’t mean the federal government has that power. Again this gets into the theoretical/principle dimension of this whole debate but as you can see that’s primarily what I was interested in.


Comment by Sonic Charmer

so this is the key: I think that having The State take care of you is a privilege (how fiscally conservative of me, eh?), that comes with restrictions! that’s kinda my whole point.

I don’t think that we should be free to destroy ourselves and have someone else pay the costs of fixing it or caring for us…

again, my argument stems from a strange line of reasoning / order of arguments in a way – kinda like the movie Memento: it’s not that I don’t think I should be able to drink all the soda that I want to – it’s that I don’t think I should be able to do so if i’m relying on The State to fix the damages I do to myself… My premise comes from the conclusion that We The People have already decided to care for the less fortunate / more stupid. We’ve rejected Social Darwinism, and I think we need qualifications as a result.

You don’t use gov’t healthcare? (or, for example the care that we spoke up above: any care that you can’t afford / aren’t insured for) No problem – drink all the soda you want. You want the gov’t to care for your diabetes? No problem – the gov’t will do that, but you can’t drink all that soda if you’re getting that care…

crazy? I don’t think so. I’d be surprised if you did?

Comment by kid dynamite

Well, ‘having The State take care of you’ is not something that The State was supposed to be doing in the first place. So in that sense we agree. I want *you* to take care of you, or if you can’t your family, or if they can’t your friends. If none of those apply, then you are what used to be known as “a charity case”.

It is not evident to me that The State is better at distributing charity than actual charities.

I understand over time that we have developed safety nets and so forth. I have no objection to limited safety nets but the problem is that they become the camel’s nose under the tent for fascism. This used to sound like a libertarian conspiracy theory, but it no longer is. Indeed, that’s exactly the argument you’re making: ‘If the State is going to Take Care Of Us, then the State can do X.’

For all possible values of X.


Comment by Sonic Charmer

so now we’re on the same page – it’s safety nets that I’m talking about.

My default view agrees with yours – I’d like fewer/no safety nets. My realist view says “that’s not really possible,” and my sensible self says “so I want RESTRICTIONS placed on the recipients of all these safety net benefits”

that’s all I’m saying.

but I’m not saying that I want people to be forced to take these safety nets! that’s why I disagree with the “Fascist” label. The problem that you’ll have with my “plan”, I think, is that in my effort to be less fascist (give you the option to drink as large a soda as you want), I must institute fascist checks (check your ID when you buy soda to make sure that you’re not in the safety net…

Comment by kid dynamite

The mandate doesn’t ‘place restrictions on safety-net recipients’. It places restrictions on all humans. You defend this by saying that we ‘must’ institute these fascist measures. I disagree that we ‘must’. But either way, it appears we agree after all on the fascist part.


Comment by Sonic Charmer

Kid Dynamite,
What I want has nothing to do with Conservatism. Conservatism is about respecting the Individual human beings authority over himself and his property.

That is the reason I told you that you are ignoring the definition of words and whole classes of ideas.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Comment by

The giveaway that you are not a Conservative, and that you do not understand the most basic concept of Conservatism is your approval of Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban.

According to your twisted definition of “Conservatism”, the government is allowed to tell people what foods they can and can’t put in their bodies. Amazing.

Comment by

the Bloomberg ban, as I’m sure you are aware, does not tell people what foods they can and can’t put in their bodies. It merely makes one small attempt to curb ignoramuses from making themselves fatter.

You are still free to buy all the soda you want and be as fat as you want to be, and have the Gov’t pay for your care… hmmm… that sounds… so… liberal? progressive?

ironic, eh?

Comment by kid dynamite

No, it’s also fascist :-) But at least it’s on a local level.

You’re right that with the soda-cup thing they’re not telling people what foods they can/can’t put in their bodies (yet). They’re telling me which products I can/can’t peacefully purchase if I want to. That is fascist too, even if on a small scale. They also have no good arguments for launching the policy whatsoever. You try to touch on one by suggesting it will ‘curb ignoramuses from making themselves fatter’ but you have no good scientific reason or other valid argument for thinking this right?

Overall, the idea that ‘if the Gov’t pays for your care, it’s also going to ___’ is nothing if not the road to fascism. There is literally no end or limit to that argument and that’s the problem. But it’s a problem that lies in the realm of principle, so I understand it’s hard to get too worked up about it in any particular instance. For worse not better.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

Damnit, Sonic Charmer, I really wanted you to be wrong on this one. Why do you have to be right all the damn time?

Comment by RJ

It gets better, I have consistently predicted Obama will be re-elected. :-)

Comment by Sonic Charmer

This is what you consider better? I hope, but do not expect, that you are wrong.

Comment by RJ

At this point, I agree; Obama will be re-elected.

He is, as Bin Laden says, “the strong horse.”

Comment by


You want the government to enforce property rights. And defend borders. And do XYZ. So you believe the government has the right to do certain things.

So I guess your definition of why it should be able to do XYZ and not ABC is that some document a bunch of dudes wrote over 200 years ago says so.

But the people who interpret that document are chosen by people the are elected by people that are alive today. And people alive today might not like that document. It’s no surprise then that they change the document.

Government can do whatever it wants, always and everywhere. Little pieces of paper aren’t going to stop it. Only if those allowed to vote believe in limited government will we get limited government. If they don’t believe in it the end of limited government is inevitable, whatever a piece of paper says. The paper can only slow the process a little, a sustained public desire to subvert it can’t be denied. People obeyed the constitution in the past because they (voters, not universal sufferage in many cases) believed in it, not because the paper had some binding power over the body politic.

Your philisophical arguement for limited government relies forms of government that are compatible. Democracy is not compatible. You must call for the end of democracy if you want limited government. However, once you get rid of democracy you’re never sure what you’ll end up with. It could be less or more government. Depends whose in power.

Comment by asdf

“So I guess your definition of why it should be able to do XYZ and not ABC is that some document a bunch of dudes wrote over 200 years ago says so.”

That’s right. That ‘some document’ is the social contract between us, and our government. It is a description of our government and a list of things it may do. Without that approach to that document, we are not a constitutional republic, we are an autocracy.

“But the people who interpret that document are chosen by people the are elected by people that are alive today. And people alive today might not like that document. It’s no surprise then that they change the document.”

The constitution itself describes how it may be ‘changed’. It’s called amendment. What you’re describing is just ignoring/violating the constitution. Have you gone through 5th grade civics yet?

“Government can do whatever it wants, always and everywhere. Little pieces of paper aren’t going to stop it. […] The paper can only slow the process a little, a sustained public desire to subvert it can’t be denied.”

I think we agree. The sad thing is, the arrangement whereby people show respect to a little piece of paper worked fairly well at slowing that process for a good long while. But yes, that time is over, we agree on that much, indeed that’s my point. In fact you’re not really arguing with my point that ours is a fascist autocracy, you’re just excusing that fact because (I guess) that’s hunky dory with you. So that’s our difference of opinion, you’re ok with fascism, and I’m not. Fascist.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

It was a contract between the collective peoples of various states.

Comment by josh

Kevin Drum is funny:

“That’s Chief Justice John Roberts. He bought the activity/inactivity Kool-Aid completely. What’s ironic, of course, is that whatever else you think of the law, the framers of the Constitution very decidedly didn’t know the difference between doing something and doing nothing. At least, they didn’t mention anything about this in the actual Constitution they wrote. That’s a distinction invented in the 21st century, not the 18th.”

How could a thinking person write something like this?

Comment by Matt

Your question is rhetorical I take it. At least, it answers itself.

Remember though, Kevin Drum is such a nice guy.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

asdf has a point.

The Constitution is supposed to be the protection against the tyranny of the majority. But it isn’t, when no one believes in the Constitution anymore, as asdf points out.

Now what?

Comment by

Now we are a fascist autocracy in which respect for the founding principles of limited government doesn’t mean fuck-all to a solid majority of citizens. Principles mean fuck-all and it is every man for himself. People who disagree with me are willing to ditch all principle and engage in any sort of subterfuge to get what they want. And my response to them, in turn, is FUCK YOU TOO.

Oh sorry, I mean now we are “progressive”. Congratulations, “progressives”.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

The constitution was written by a tiny minority of people at a time when a tiny minority of people were allowed to vote. We were so far away from democracy (universal sufferage) that it was an entirely different form of government. “Constitutional republic” and “only educated people with property being allowed to vote” are inseperable. Universal sufferage INEVITABLY leads to authoritarianism. And universal sufferage is an inevitable result of our modern world. So authoritarianism is inevitable. Just in case you didn’t get the memo.

Comment by asdf

Got it. So we agree then. Thanks asdf,

Comment by Sonic Charmer

You’re basically correct except that in your frustration you label it “fascism”. The danger is you might forget (or have already forgotten) that’s just name-calling and not fascism per-se. Fascism is more to do with the united spirit of the people, the flesh of the individual being part of the flesh of “the nation”, the latter (the nation) being a type of spirit that exists and which moves the individuals who, in themselves, are of no importance.
Here, we merely have a slightly totalitarian regime which makes demands on individuals. Totalitarian not because it makes demands – since all regimes do so – but because it isn’t too concerned with the rule of law. So relax. You’re living in a slightly totalitarian country, not a fascist one.

Comment by Anon.

Fascism is ‘everything inside the state, nothing outside the state’ which is precisely the sense I mean to use it here. The insurance companies are all part of the state now, and all humans have been commandeered as part of the state to help fund health care.

It’s true enough that (as I think you may be trying to point out, correctly) this fascism is not exactly a direct opposite of constitutional republic with rule of law. i.e., just because we have lost our constitution and rule of law wouldn’t by itself *necessarily* make us fascist. But in the event, it does so happen that we have abandoned constitutional republicanism with rule of law, and the specific *way* in which we have done so is that we have embraced fascism.


Comment by Sonic Charmer

:) Yes, I was going more by the embodiment of what I see fascism as having been in the nazi era (though I seem to recall a history teacher of mine once explaining that it was the italians, not the germans who came up with calling themselves fascist, so go figure). If fascism is merely “everything inside the state, nothing outside the state” how is it different from simple and total control, from a totalitarian regime? Thing is that “fascism” is charged with myriad associations and if all you mean is “the state taking control it shouldn’t over individuals” then it’s best to simply state that and to avoid labeling it as fascist, particularly since you yourself will end up feeling like you live in a fascist country – i.e feeling all these other associations as being present, merely by using that label.

Pastorius: I think the multi-culti engineers were partly aiming exactly for that consequence but in practice, it can still be fascist, either by defining the non-ethnic group as not being part of the nation or else by having post-ethnic fascism (though this is unlikely).

I just remembered something interesting from daniel pipe’s site, check this out: ”

A. J. P. Taylor wrote this memorable passage in English History, 1914-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970):

Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. … broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.

Comment: In 2011, one can only dream of such a limited state.

And I think if soft-beverages existed, one could sell them in large bottles without being persecuted and I’m sure one could smoke in public places, could draw a caricature lampooning muhammed, even decide what to put in one’s own body, including drugs. I assume one could have done that in america too, the land of the free.

Comment by Anon.

P.S. I guess part of the confusion here it’s that it’s both fascist *and* totalitarian. And it’s true enough that which descriptive I turn to have been influenced by my frustration and anger, i.e. just saying ‘fascist’, while accurate, is also name-calling.

Going forward, I shall endeavor to properly employ both words jointly to describe this decision and the fucking fascist totalitarians who welcome it.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

If you’ve ever read Hayek, I think you will find that SC is going by the definition of Fascism used in The Road to Serfdom.

Your definition of Fascism is specific to a brand of Fascism which was espouse in the 20th Century. By your definition, it would be impossible for any nation of Anglo or European origin to be Fascist at this point, because all of our nations are now ethnically diffuse.

Comment by Pastorius

And, it’s only “slightly” Fascist until the death panels kick in. Then what do you call it?

Another point, considering where we’ve come from, and where we are headed, I think Americans have the right to be truly outraged at this ruling.

The government just took over 1/5 of the economy. The people did not want this to happen. Even recent polls show only 39% support for Obamacare.

Comment by Pastorius

[…] its face, the ruling it a plain power grab, end of story. (Do click on that link — it is ‘Sonic Charmer’ at his angry […]

Pingback by Some Thoughts On The Constitution | ImNotHerzog

[…] the record show that, although I don’t ‘work on political authority’, I don’t think we ‘actually have a valid social contract’ either. Alas. The question is how we feel about that fact and whether it, however imperfect and unattained […]

Pingback by A philosophy professor responds to…me (?) on open borders « Rhymes With Cars & Girls

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 498 other followers

%d bloggers like this: