What the Oregon protest is really about

The news stories about the protests in Oregon over father and son ranchers being sent to jail are all about the protests but say little about what is being protested.

The New York Times reports that Dwight Hammond, 73, has spent three months in jail and his son Steven Hammond, 46, has spent one year in jail, but a judge has ruled they must serve four more years for arson. The story says, “The Hammonds admitted they lit fires in 2001 and 2006, but said it had been to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plant species.”

What isn’t being reported is that the Hammonds were prosecuted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 following the Oklahoma City bombing and requires a minimum of five years in prison.

Nor do the stories detail the nature of the so-called arson.

According to an Oregon Live story in October, in 2001 the Hammonds started a fire on their own property to burn off juniper and sagebrush that reduced the grass available for their cattle. The fire escaped their property and burned 139 acres of BLM land. That acreage was taken out of grazing for two years.

In 2006, the story says, lightning started several fires and Steven Hammond set a back-burn fire to try to prevent the fire from spreading. That fire burned an acre of public land.

For that the Hammonds were prosecuted under a domestic terrorism law? They were trying to protect their own property and livelihoods, not engage in an act of terrorism. Is that justice?

That is the reason for the protest. What has gotten overplayed most is that the protesters include some of Cliven Bundy’s sons.

Protesters oppose terrorism conviction of two ranchers. (The Oregonian photo via AP and NYTimes)




66 comments on “What the Oregon protest is really about

  1. Winston Smith says:

    More one size fits all govbot bullshit. Someone needs to invite Hugh Jackman, Liam Neeson, Alfie Boe and Gerard Depardieu to the rallies…

  2. Just read it a few minutes ago. Can’t vouch for all the details but the federal court railroading sounds all too plausible.

  3. Nyp says:

    Oh, in that case it’s ok for an armed group to seize federal property.

  4. Nyp says:

    “Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut about the fires. “

  5. Steve says:

    So the whole thing started because some peasants killed the kings deer….

  6. A.D. Hopkins says:

    If it’s like NYP describes it’s probably arson but it seems a miscarriage of justice to prosecute under the terrorism statute. Does the law include some new and creative definition of terrorism?
    I wondered why the actual offenses were not included in the stories coming out about the protests. Guess giving that information might have made the protests seem more understandable.

  7. Steve says:

    Nyp like to mislead, A.D.
    He did a copy/paste from the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s Office.
    It says nothing about what statute they were charged. mentioning only arson. (and the deer)


  8. Steve says:

    Though arson is referred 7 separate times in the anti terrorism act.

  9. Nyp says:

    Not surprisingly, it is against the law to commit arson on federal property.
    How unfair.

  10. Steve says:

    Or kill the kings deer, you imperialist.

  11. rgmiller59@comcast.net says:

    Absolutely! Thank you!

    Sent from my HTC

  12. Rincon says:

    In Hammond’s case at least, the major offense apparently did not rest with the original crime, but rather with the coverup attempt. I agree that charging them with a terrorism related crime seems over the top. I wonder if the prosecution was doing their usual legal garbage, charging the defendant with a greater crime to encourage them to plea bargain to a lesser offense.

  13. Patrick says:

    It’s pretty simple really. These guys committed a crime, they were charged pursuant to the law, they were convicted of the charge, by a jury of their peers, and the law required that they serve a mandatory sentence.

    Then, a bunch of terrorists, who claim the law doesn’t apply to them, because they say so, committed another act of terrorism and treason against the people of this country. And, as a special added bonus, these terrorists are DARING the citizens of this country to enforce the law against them and at the same time, THREATENING, with physical harm, anyone that would dare enforce the law.

    Let’s hope the federal government, that tried to act reasonably with Bundy in the past, learns that with some people, there is no reasoning with them, and they must be treated like the crazed terrorists they are.

  14. Steve says:

    Yeah, the feds should arrest and jail Cliven,
    That’l teach’m!

  15. Patrick says:

    Well, whether it teaches him anything, which is unlikely, is not really relevant.

    When you break the law, doesn’t matter if the law teaches you anything when it requires that you take responsibility for breaking it.

  16. Steve says:

    Like the Hammonds are.

    For taking the kings deer!

  17. Patrick says:

    You missed the important part of the story Steve.

    See, the Hammons were charged with a crime, based on their actions, and convicted of the crime by a jury of their peers. And, in case you don’t want to go all the way back and read the story again, the crime related to terrorism.

  18. Barbara says:

    “When you break the law….you take responsibility for breaking it.” Unless of course you are Hillary and the Clinton Crime Foundation.

  19. Winston Smith says:

    How dare the mere hoi polloi want the individual western states to own and control the land within their borders!?! Who do they think they are, easterners?

  20. Steve says:

    “You missed the important part of the story Steve.”

    Winston got my point, Patrick.

    Barbara hits the the target.

    You missed the sarcasm, entirely.

  21. Patrick says:

    Barbara apparently failed to understand that the Hammons were tried, and convicted, by their peers, of a crime. And Winston?

    Well, Winston lives in his own world. And in that world, the law is what HE thinks it OUGHT to be (which is sort of like the world a dictator wants right?)

  22. Steve says:

    Well, Patrick lives in his own world. And in that world, the law is what HE thinks it OUGHT to be….

    Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    And, ICYMI, I posted a link to the Oregon U.S. Attorney’s Office which shows this whole thing began with killing the kings deer.
    Can’t make this stuff up, history is repeating itself.

  23. Patrick says:

    And Steve you are correct about my missing your sarcasm. Maybe it’s because what you said was SO far attenuated from what happen, that I didn’t make the connection.

    See, as you must know, the crime that the Hammons were convicted of, by a jury of their peers, had nothing to do with deer, or kings. Instead, it had to do with coming an act of terrorism.

    No “king” owned any land at issue, no “deer killing” was at issue, instead, what the Hammons did was commit an act of terrorism, by burning land that belongs to the citizens of this country, as a means of covering up a crime they had committed.

    And now, another crime is in progress that, even though it appears the crime is being sponsored and encouraged by other treasonous terrorists, it is a crime directly related to the Hammons actions.

  24. Patrick says:

    Which King did the deer belong to Steve?

    But in my world, when you are charged with a crime, given a trial, with all elements of due process, convicted of that crime, by a jury of your peers, and then sentenced in accordance with a constitutional requirements, that you serve that sentence.

    But apparently, that’s not the world you or Winston, or heck, apparently Barbara, cotton much to.

  25. Steve says:

    Apparently, Patrick requires infantile spoon feeding.

    See, Nyp posted a copy from that page. This is the first sentence from Nyp’s copy/paste;

    “Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property.”

    If you cannot see the historical reference, then you are truly beyond help.

    It is obvious you cannot handle Masshole sahcasm. I must remember to inundate you with it at every fohk in the road.

  26. Steve says:

    And, as the Hammonds are voluntarily turning themselves in for jail,
    And, as I have not, anywhere stated they should not do so,
    And, as I have not stated any support whatsoever for the people now “protesting” the actions of the government in this “re-sentencing” (they already served the sentence handed down)

    You clearly confused statement regarding my beliefs is moot at best and false on its face.

  27. Patrick says:

    Steve if I said that this country prosecuted Khalid Sheik Mohammad because he was a Muslim (that’s where it all started) would you get the sarcasm?

    Would my assertion, imbued with that sarcasm mean to you that I was in any way supporting KSM and mocking the government for prosecuting him?

    Your sarcasm, was so far removed, from any facts related to why the Hammons were prosecuted (see, again, I’ll tell you that the crime we are discussing here wasn’t slaughtering deer, or had any relation to a king) that your sarcasm just fell short because, it’s just relevant to what happened. So, I guess I’m saying that…you’re just not funny, or half as witty as you seem to think you are.

  28. Steve says:

    Attempt moot. Zero sarcasm on the meter. The guy’s in Guantanamo therefore not prosecuted.
    Political or prisoner of war. Either way, no prosecution.
    Also false equivalency.

    Makes the rest of your stuff total bullcrap.

    Par for the course.

  29. Patrick says:

    Nonsense. Stupidity. Irrationality.

    Thy name is Steve.

  30. Steve says:

    Ahh, the inevitable insult.

    Concession, noted.

  31. The phrase jury of their peers keeps getting bandied about.

    I can’t vouch for the facts, but experience suggests the plausibility of this mid-November posting by Ammon Bundy:

    “Judge Michael Hogan & (prosecutor) Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home. On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.

    “June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge.”


    As for setting a fire to cover up poaching, how or why would one do that? What evidence was being burned … along with valuable grazing land?

  32. nyp says:

    So are you defending the arsonists, or the armed “militia” who seized federal property, or both?

  33. The Eighth Amendment.

  34. Patrick says:

    Thomas Ammon Bundy is not my idea of a credible source about most things, much less the law, or due process, or what a “fair trial” means pursuant to law.

    These men did have attorneys defending them right? I mean, guys who presumably sat for jury selection, sat through the cross examined witnesses and presented their case right?

    Although the defendants attorneys own interpretation might be biased, at least their opinion would be based (hopefully) on knowing what the law requires/allows.

    Unlike Bundys.

  35. There is a big difference between maliciously and accidentally … should they have been convicted in the first place?

    “Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.”


  36. Clearly, the Feds are overreaching again. Does anyone really believe that the Hammonds should be tried and prosecuted as “terrorists?” That is patently absurd. A controlled burn by landowners…or an attempt to save one’s home with a back fire…is NOT arson. Should the BLM be prosecuted for arson? I can’t tell you how many times I have been in an area where a BLM started so called “controlled burn” got out of control and damaged hundreds of acres and burnt down numerous homes, barns and killed horses and other domestic livestock in the process. Clearly…this is a case of double jeopardy…and the original ruling by the first judge was the standard that was proper and fitting according to the facts as we know them. This additional prosecution (persecution) for five years in prison is a steaming pile of bravo sierra. I smell a Neal Kornze…somewhere in the mix.

  37. Patrick says:

    HFB I don’t think you understand the meaning of double jeopardy but this wasn’t it. And there was but one prosecution, not 2, and the judge was plainly wrong since the crime carried a mandatory sentence, and the judge didn’t impose it. Shoot, this judge acted in absolute defiance of the legislature who determined what the sentence should be. A clear case of judicial activism that I thought conservatives abhorred?

    And the fact that the Hammons were convicted of terrorism, is a fair indicator that that is exactly what they were guilty of so, how could it be “overcharging”?

  38. nyp says:

    Your concern over the often arbitrary nature of mandatory minimum sentencing rules is impressive. Liberals have complained about mandatory minimums for years, but, then, who cares when the person being sentenced is a young black marijuana dealer? In those instances, mandatory sentences are the product of conservative politicians who demand that discretion in applying criminal sentences be taken out of the hands of all those bleeding-heart librul judges. But when the defendant is a white rancher turned arsonist, of course the situation is totally different ….

  39. Patrick says:

    And Thomas, they sure had their day in court to argue that it wasn’t malicious right? I mean, that burden the government sustain is a damn high one.

    Pardon me for saying so again, but their jury of their peers looked at the evidence, and decided beyond a reasonable doubt, that those men had been malicious in their actions.

    Course, this is all a side show as to what’s about to happen, and the current treasonous/terrorist actions being committed by the crazies there are far more dangerous to this country.

  40. Hammond attorney’s writ of certiorari arguing disparate sentencings:

    Relying on the results in this Court’s cases, which
    have affirmed “far tougher sentences for less serious
    or, at the very least, comparable offenses,” the Ninth
    Circuit rejected the district court’s decision out of
    hand. App. 10. More troubling, it did so without even
    considering an intra- and inter-jurisdictional comparison
    of others sentenced for the same crime. As
    detailed below, such a comparison, verifies the
    threshold conclusion that imposition of a five-year
    mandatory minimum on petitioners would be grossly
    disproportionate to their conduct.
    In the District of Oregon, petitioners located only
    a single prosecution of several defendants for violations
    of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f). The defendants were
    associated with “the activist group known publicly
    as the Earth Liberation Front (“ELF”) and the
    Animal Liberation Front (“ALF”).” United States v.
    Tankersley, 537 F.3d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir. 2008), cert.
    den., 556 U.S. 1282 (2009). The Ninth Circuit summarized
    the defendants’ conduct as follows:
    Over a five-year period beginning in October
    1996 as many as sixteen individuals conspired
    to damage or destroy private and government
    property on behalf of ELF and ALF.
    The conspirators targeted government agencies
    and private entities they believed were
    responsible for degrading the environment
    through timber harvesting, cruelty to animals,
    and other means. The conspiracy covered
    multiple crimes in five Western states
    and resulted in tens of millions of dollars in
    damage.[ ] . . . After lengthy negotiations, all
    ten defendants agreed to proceed by way of
    criminal informations and pled guilty to conspiracy.
    Nine of the defendants also pled
    guilty to separate, substantive counts of arson
    and/or attempted arson.
    Tankersley, 537 F.3d at 1103-04 (footnote omitted).
    Some of the defendants were subjected to the
    “terrorism enhancement,” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, which
    elevates both the offense level and the offender’s
    criminal history category. Others did not technically
    qualify for that enhancement, but the district court
    imposed a 12-level upward departure to account for
    the terroristic nature of the overall conspiracy.
    Tankersley, 537 F.3d at 1116. The crimes involved one
    to nine arsons; the sentences imposed ranged from 37
    months to 156 months imprisonment, with nearly all
    of the sentences imposed falling below the advisory
    Guidelines range.
    Those prosecutions were in the heart of the
    type of conduct Congress targeted when enacting 18
    U.S.C. § 844(f)(1), as well as the mandatory minimum
    provisions added by the AEDPA. The defendants were
    domestic terrorists, who intended to destroy property
    and inflict financial harm. Their advisory guidelines
    ranges reflected the extremely serious nature of their
    offenses and established ranges far exceeding the
    mandatory minimum term. Those prosecutions – both
    the nature of the offense and the resulting sentences
    – “validated” the district court’s judgment here that
    the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence
    here would have been “grossly disproportionate” to
    both the crime committed and the offender, and, thus,

    Intentional arson resulted in less than five years.

    Click to access Hammond-v-United-States-Oregon-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Filed-June-17-2013.pdf

  41. The sideshow should not distract from the fundamental question of whether justice was served.

  42. Patrick says:

    And, they lost.

  43. I’m sure the jury instructions did not allow jury nullification. In fact, those kinds of people — so honored in the Zenger case — are weeded out during voir dire, or as Vin Suprynowicz calls it: jury tampering.

  44. Patrick says:

    And I have to go back to what nyp said, and point out that all those years of listening to conservatives talk about how the law is written by the legislature and that it’s not for “liberal” “judicial activists” to re-write the law. That the judges job is merely to do what the law says.

    It’s sure strikes me as hypocritical to hear some now say, because their version of a sacred calf is being slaughtered, that some leeway ought to be allowed.

    If only this sort of reason had been available when this country was putting people away for years and years for smoking weed. Or burning flags. Or whatever else it is that “liberals” did that conservatives objected to.

  45. Patrick says:

    On a personal note, based on my review of the defendants writ though (and it’s never a good idea to form opinions this way but…meh) I have to say that the law is wrong. Not only shouldn’t it apply to what these guys did, but the prosecutor shouldn’t have brought this action against them under that statute. And, furthermore, the mandatory minimum was way to much for their crime.

    Having said all that, I blame the far right wing nut jobs who were behind this law, writing it as they did to appeal to the far right wing lunatics who wanted to hear the words “terrorism” and “mandatory minimums” as often as they could. And then also, the far right wing nuts, who absolutely DEMANDED that judges get out of being “reasonable” (read “activist”) and just do what he God Damn Legislature tells you to do!

  46. Libertarians have always been for more rational laws and rational sentencing, especially under the obscene drug laws.

  47. And as a conservative Mr. Mitchell…I wholeheartedly agree with that rationale.

  48. Patrick says:

    Thomas in all my years of reading your columns in the RJ I don’t recall, leastways early on in the “war against drugs” sentencing or imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, any real calls for their eradication on philosophical grounds; do you have access to any that you can cite for me?

    I don’t doubt you, I just have a different memory of that period, but I would honestly love to see some.

  49. nyp says:

    Nope, it’s only when the criminals are ranchers, or some guy’s yacht becomes subject to criminal forfeiture that we hear heart-felt concern about disparities in sentencing, prosecutor-picked juries, etc.

    On the other hand, it is refreshing that no one here is trying to defend the Vanilla-ISIS types currently occupying the federal property.

  50. Patrick says:

    nyp, the silence though, is somewhat deafening right? I mean, seems like so many of the same posters who condemn ALL muslims that don’t condemn individuals who commit acts of terrorism, might take the opportunity to speak up against these criminals…but they don’t.

    Do we then group them in with the criminals like they seem to believe is appropriate when muslims don’t all get on television each time another muslim commits a crime?

  51. “Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds”
    Lest we forget what it takes to stand up to the abuses of federal government agencies…David vs. Goliath…”Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”
    “In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”


  52. Steve says:

    The Hammonds are the final say in their own guilt and they voluntarily reported to prison to serve the new sentence demanded by prosecutors.
    Those so called “militiamen” have not answered any call for assistance by any landowner and our government is taking careful steps to handle this situation.
    The Hammonds never asked for any so called “militia” help.
    The judge is quoted as saying Dwight’s five year sentence is “a shock to the conscious”.
    I hope it gets resolved peacefully and I hope the President answers the Hammonds call for clemency on this overreach of prosecutorial power.

    Anyone else notice Patrick’s desperate attempt to turn this into a racial argument?

  53. Rincon says:

    “Libertarians have always been for more rational laws and rational sentencing, especially under the obscene drug laws.” Unfortunately, Conservatives and Libertarians tend to unfairly get lumped together. Understandable since they so often agree. It is interesting though, that I cannot recall any Libertarians complaining about mandatory sentencing laws relating to drug use. Not their clientele I suppose.

  54. Steve says:

    Libertarians think drug laws should be abolished. I agree.


  55. Patrick says:

    Libertarians also believe that parents have no duty to their born and/or unborn children. On fact, not only can the parents abort the “offending tissue” if they allow it to be born, they ought to be able to sell it. But certainly they can, upon the babe being born, throw it onto the sidewalk and let it fend for itself.


  56. Steve says:

    No doubt, Patrick. Libertarians tend to go off the deep end rather quickly.

    Never said all their stuff is good. Just like those darned Democrats…the deep end comes along fast!

  57. “Why the Hammonds?

    “The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said.

    In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000-foot peak.

    A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness in 2000, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

    “The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” said Maupin. Though some still have BLM grazing permits, the Hammonds are the last private landowners in the area.”


  58. “Relatives of the ranchers convicted of arson, Dwight L. Hammond and his son Steven D. Hammond, 46, distanced themselves from the armed takeover, but said they understood the underlying anger over federal land policies that many here feel are intrusive and overreaching.

    “I don’t know those people that well, except that I just see from the outside that we have a lot of things in common,” said Dwight Hammond’s wife, Susan. “We share a lot of sentiments in regards to our government, and the overreach into management of our country.”

    (“Armed Group Vows to Continue Occupation at Oregon Refuge,”
    New York Times, By Kirk Johnson and Jack Healy, Jan. 3, 2016)

  59. Winston Smith says:

    1859 – the year the state of Oregon should have taken control of all the land within its borders, except, perhaps, for a few federal forts, magazines, arsenals and dock-Yards…

    “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;” – Art. 1, Sec. 8

    All trouble emanating from the federal government’s unconstitutional holding of the 53% of Oregon is clearly on the heads of those that allowed it to happen, or have, as of yet, done nothing to remedy the situation and return those lands to Salem’s control.

    By systematically ignoring the “equal footing” doctrine, as outlined in Art. IV, Sec. 3, Clause 1of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, the feds deserve nothing but derision and resistance for their continuing (and growing) tyranny in the West.

  60. nyp says:

    Yup – Yellowstone and Yosemite are unconstitutional

  61. […] brings us to Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, two Oregon ranchers now serving mandatory five-year sentences because fires set on their own property escaped onto federal land, […]

  62. […] brings us to Dwight Hammond and his son Steven, two Oregon ranchers now serving mandatory five-year sentences because fires set on their own property escaped onto federal land, […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s