How well are the mainstream media covering questions about Hillary’s health?

Clinton coughing during a recent speech. (AP photo via WSJ)

Clinton coughing during a recent speech. (AP photo via WSJ)

She is trying to have it both ways.

Hillary Clinton told the FBI she could not recall briefings about classified information due to a concussion she had in 2012.

The FBI report said, “However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot (in her head). Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received.”

But now Clinton’s surrogates are attacking the news media for deigning to question her health after she experienced a four-minute coughing spasm at a recent speech and another aboard an airplane while being questioned by reporters.

“They’re trying to work the refs a little bit as they try to push back on the mainstream media’s willingness to pick up on some of this stuff that’s usually left to the fringes,” Clinton surrogate and former Harry Reid mouthpiece Jim Manley said of the efforts.

The Hill said the campaign intends to counterattack news media who even dare to take seriously questions about her health.

A number of conservative outlets have raised the issue of her health, but Manley said the campaign fears the issue is “bleeding to the mainstream media.”

Which is funny, since The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto just pointed out that media are trying to tamp down the story.

“Hillary Clinton is in excellent health, so shut up: That’s a summary of the media narrative that emerged last month after Donald Trump questioned whether Mrs. Clinton has ‘mental and physical stamina.’ A Puffington Host headline proposed: ‘Let’s Call The Conspiracy Theories About Hillary’s Health What They Are.’ What are they? You guessed it: ‘The subtext of the rumors spouted by Trump and his crew of armchair doctors is clear: [Mrs.] Clinton is biologically unfit to lead,’ asserted senior reporter Melissa Jeltsen,” Taranto writes. ‘She’s a woman, after all.’”

A Huffington Post contributor who posted comments questioning Clinton’s health was immediately terminated.

The WSJ columnist reports mainstream media headlines have included the Washington Post’s “Armed With Junk Science and Old Photos, Critics Question #HillarysHealth,” The New Yorker’s “The Far Right’s Obsession With Hillary’s Health” and the Atlantic’s “Questions About Hillary’s Health: The Birtherism of 2016.”

But a former Clinton aide told The Hill, “I think that the fact that any mainstream publications would do anything but make this is a story about Donald Trump is completely out of the mainstream and why these claims have gotten worse. …

“The fact of the matter is there is no truth or factual evidence to debunk,” the former aide continued. “She is perfectly healthy. The only way is to challenge him to a pushup contest at the first debate.”

The website WND, admittedly not mainstream, has tracked down a number of doctors willing to diagnose Hillary from afar and call for her to release health records.

Typical were the comments of Dr. Gerard Gianoli of Tulane University:

“What do we know about Mrs. Clinton’s health? We know that she has suffered two deep vein thromboses and an episode of cerebral venous thrombosis. Blood spontaneously clotting within one’s veins on three separate occasions is not a good thing. In fact, it is life-threatening. This tells us that she has a hypercoagulable state requiring the use of Coumadin (a ‘blood thinner’) for the rest of her life to try to prevent this from happening again. While Coumadin may prevent future blood clots, it can also lead to life-threatening hemorrhage if she has any future trauma.

“We also know that she suffered a concussion and, according to her husband, she took 6 months to recover. How do we know she recovered? If she was a high school athlete, she would have had mandatory neuropsychological testing before being allowed to participate in sports again. Given that being the leader of the free world is more important than playing goalie for the local high school, why is the mainstream media not demanding to see Mrs. Clinton’s post-concussion testing?”

 

 

44 comments on “How well are the mainstream media covering questions about Hillary’s health?

  1. Barbara says:

    I watched the Presidential forum yesterday. My thoughts:

    1. How sad that one of these two candidates will be the next President. One a career criminal who is being protected by a corrupt Justice Department and FBI, and the other a shallow unreliable man who clearly has no foundational substance or grasp of current or historical events or policy.

    2. What a lost opportunity. We should be listening to a real constitutional conservative speak to the nation and contrast the conservative agenda of individual freedom and opportunity against such a career criminal who makes up lies every time she opens her mouth.

    Anyone who watched the shameful conduct of these two candidates had to come away acknowledging that the two political parties who could put up such candidates, that the news media who participates in such a farce, and that even the body politic is so far beyond the pale that we have our answer to Franklin’s question. No, we could not keep our Republic.

  2. Dems have blinders on. Rasmussen Reports:

    All voters strongly agree that a candidate’s health is an important voting issue, but while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters think the state of Hillary Clinton’s health is worth exploring, the majority of Democrats disagree.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 86% of Likely U.S. Voters say a candidate’s health is important to their vote, with 43% who say it is Very Important. Just 12% rate the health of a candidate as unimportant, and that includes only one percent (1%) who feel it is Not At All Important. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    Eighty-five percent (85%) of Democrats agree with 89% of GOP voters and 85% of voters not affiliated with either major party that a candidate’s health is important to their vote, although voters in Clinton’s party are slightly less likely to say it’s Very Important.

    But only 17% of Democrats think Clinton’s health is a legitimate voter concern. Seventy-two percent (72%) think questions about their candidate’s health are just being raised by her opponents to make her look bad. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans and unaffiliated voters by a 52% to 37% margin think Clinton’s health is a legitimate issue.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/democrats_agree_candidate_health_important_but_not_hillary_s

  3. Vernon Clayson says:

    Barbara wrutes of the two candidates for the upcoming election as being unfit for one reason or another, this after almost 8 years of Barack Obama that came out of nowhere with no experience and no official record of his background. His agenda and governing were propped up by god knows how many devious and far more intellectual persons, his placement as a candidate and president was more an academic exercise to start and conduct a movement than anything, the sad thing is that seasoned politicians, our own Harry Reid is a prime example, and liberally inclined dupes, i.e., voters, fell for the exercise. Worst of all is that the Congress was taken in and lacked the fortitude to question him, partly because he became president and partly because they fear the backlash of minority leaders and being depicted as racist for confronting him. The presidency is one branch of the government, it is not sacrosanct, his job is to propose, it’s the duty of Congress to dispose, oddly the members gave that up.

  4. Point of fact…while I share Barbara’s appraisal of the two nominees, the “party” doesn’t put them up. They are selected by representative delegates in all 50 states. A year ago, no one gave Trump a ghost of a chance to become the Republican nominee. He had to defeat 16 other candidates, some of who were solid conservatives. What the media and the GOP establishment failed to discern was the outrage of the electorate and everyday people with the “business as usual” attitude in Washington. Thus we end up with a bull in a china shop. The Democrats were far more scurrilous in making sure that Hillary WOULD BE their nominee via their Super Delegate scam. And sadly now we are left with a binary choice…and who would be the least damaging to our Republic. So pragmatically…or practically, like Mark Levin…I will pull the lever for Trump, in order to stop the Clintons and their progressive statist agenda began by Our Community Organizer in Chief.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/levin-im-voting-for-trump

  5. nyp says:

    First there were the “9/11 truthers”

    Then there were the “birthers.”

    Now, I suppose you guys are the “coughers.”

  6. See Rasmussen poll results to learn who the deniers are.

  7. Bill says:

    Barbara. While I agree with you that it is regrettable that we must choose between two flawed candidates, “political parties” are not to blame. A political party is an amorphous thing like the “government”.

    Political parties have little nor no control over who may claim to belong to this or that party. In fact, to my knowledge there are no rules and no real membership. All one needs to do is go to the registrar of voters and declare their affiliation in order to vote or run for office.

    While certain categories of persons are denied the vote, I know of no known mechanism for preventing someone from declaring themselves as belonging to a particular political party.

    As for disavowing a candidate in advance of a primary or caucus, as I recall, Trump was particularly vocal on this issue claiming that if the Republicans did not treat him fairly he just might run as a third party candidate. Recall too, that Trump ran as an outsider who disliked politicians and the establishment. The more he said it, the greater his attraction. In the final analysis, it was not the Republican Party that chose or controlled Trump, it was Trump who caused them to reluctantly join him at the table.

    Political parties, in my opinion, do not really choose candidates anymore, particularly presidential candidates. We have primaries and caucuses these days to ostensibly be the flag bearers for their party. Political parties have little power these days. They can raise money and they can provide forums such as national conventions but the days of party bosses having much control are long gone and I am sure that most academics and the media rejoice that we have democratized the process.

    A political party is, in reality, an amorphous thing.

    And Vernon, while I agree with much of what you have said, I don’t blame Congress. Blame our educational system, blame the media and blame voter apathy.

    Just like you both, I am frustrated and often angry. I console myself that historically the American people have managed to muddle through and do the right thing.

    I take heart in the fact that our forefathers, when they designed our constitution, gave us a mechanism for evolving and curing some of the evils that existed in their time.

  8. Many Founders feared and despised political parties.

  9. Bill says:

    They didn’t like democracy either. There were other things they weren’t particularly high on either, like central banks.

  10. nyp says:

    I remember that last year at about this time the National Enquirer reported that Hillary had only 6 months to live.
    So I guess for her, every day is now a blessing.

  11. Barbara says:

    Bill, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the RNC and the DNC set the rules by which primaries and caucuses will be governed. The RNC specifically set the rules which allowed a candidate to win a state without winning a majority of the vote in that state. The RNC rules allowed open primaries wherein any registered voter of the state can vote in the Republican primary, set the dates on when a state can hold their primary or caucus, and even the rules for the so-called debates and who would moderate them. The party leaders have targeted conservative candidates and have even removed them from chairmanships. (Tim Huelskamp in Kansas for one).

    Congress has refused to exercise the power delegated to them exclusively to pass laws. They have allowed the executive branch and the courts to usurp power. We are governed today by regulations having the effect of laws passed by an over reaching executive branch and court decisions that make the law instead of interpreting.

  12. nyp says:

    BTW, I like the casual way in which Barbara asserts that the Director of the FBI is engaged in a criminal cover-up.

  13. Steve says:

    Can’t blame Comey for wanting to stay off the Clinton hit list!

  14. Barbara says:

    At the time the FBI was questioning Hillary, they had recovered emails which dealt with Hillary’s inappropriate and corrupt relationship with the Clinton Foundation through which she ran a pay-for-access extortion scam with the Foundation donors. At no time did any FBI investigator ask any question regarding this scam or confront her with the damaging emails. This scam goes directly to motive and intent which Comey falsely claimed did not exist and was the reason he did not recommend prosecution. Never mind that intent is not required to be proven in the first place. Comey should be impeached.

  15. Nyp says:

    Even for this blog this is all pretty derby.

  16. Steve says:

    For me the thing that counts is her emotional reaction before congress.
    She will have to deal with that level and more on a daily basis.
    If she cannot hold a straight “poker” face before her own country-persons, how can I trust she will hold the line and be unemotional when confronted by other country heads of state?

    Her emotional reaction in that email mess is the largest reason for so much of the scandals long legs. Her 5 consecutive denials to using the server in the first place didn’t help either, she has way too many “tells” to be a good negotiator. Let alone head of state in the most powerful nation on Earth.

  17. Vernon Clayson says:

    I guesss Steve hasn’t noticed that Obama pays little to no attention to the Congress, why would they of a sudden develop back bones and challenge Clinton? Far more likely they will challenge Trump should he win the office, he’s an outsider and therefore unwelcome to the zoo that is Washington DC

  18. Steve says:

    Vernon, What?

    Are you making assumptions about who I am supporting in this election?

    Trump is not on my “A” list either.

    Hint, the guy I like has just reached 12% in polling. CPD is interested….

  19. nyp says:

    And what is Aleppo?

  20. nyp says:

    wait — Hillary is too emotional and open about her feelings?

    I thought we were all supposed to believe that she is too cold, to calculating, and too unrevealing.

    So confusing.

  21. Steve says:

    First tell us how Hillary can’t remember if any of her emails were marked confidential or classified if she can’t remember what the “C” stood for

    In any case, MSNBC posed a loaded question and even the ladies on “The View” made that clear.
    He did well in that, snake pit, interview. Even got Behar the Joyless to acknowledge his positivity.

    But “at this point, what does it, bleeping, matter?” At least she did censor that out.

  22. Let’s see what the little nypper has to say about this one…Hillarys health is now a campaign issue!

  23. Steve says:

    To me, it’s not her health that became an issue.
    Rather, how she and her campaign are handling it.
    Hiding and distraction are poor choices for a campaign on a public display of illness.

    Even when they “admit” to pneumonia they won’t tell what type. And even that took all day.

  24. I concur…but for the Clintons…hiding and distraction are standard operating procedures!

  25. rincon says:

    If the pneumonia was not contagious, it was nobody else’s business. As for a health status report, that is best done before the primaries, not after; thus, you should fault all of the primary candidates. Hillary shares this perceived lapse with the other candidates, including the Libertarian, I suspect, but you single her out. Your double standard is obvious to all as is the fact thatTrump’s lack of tax transparency is both more egregious and not shared by Hillary, yet you criticize that much less.

  26. Bill says:

    The health status of any presidential candidate is always an issue. When one collapses on a campaign platform, the issue is even more pertinent.

    Trump can be fairly criticized for not releasing his tax returns but it is merely a partisan political comment unrelated to the issue of Hillary’s health.

    If you will recall when John McCain ran for President, his health, and pariculary his melanoma caused much frothing at the mouth by the media and the political pundits. Unless I am mistaken, cancer is not contagious. Did the public have a right to know about his condition? Of course.

    Are you really serious by your statement that Hillary’s pneumonia is not anyone’s business if it was not contagious?

    In your opinion, should the the standard for medical disclosure by a candidate be limited to only those diseases or condtions that are infectious ?

  27. Steve says:

    Nightly news reports her doctor released details on the pneumonia and its cause.
    They say she is not contagious and the cause of the pneumonia was bacterial from a virus she got more than 2 weeks ago. Clinton was advised to get rest and they gave her antibiotics.
    Clinton ignored the advice and went on campaigning full steam ahead. The report does not indicate whether the infection was ever contagious.

    Clinton’s decision to ignore expert advice is a clear indication of how she will respond to advice from other experts once elected to office…in other words, not only will she ignore it, she will also make bad decisions.
    Hopefully, those decisions don’t end up killing a whole lot of people.

  28. rincon says:

    Medical disclosures should only be about conditions which are likely to affect a candidate’s suitability for office – or contagious disease if the candidate was careless in regard to exposing others. Neither applies to this situation.

    As for Hillary’s ignoring expert advice, she may not have ignored it at all. Did the doctor say BED rest, or no activity of any kind? You sound very presumptuous here to me.

    When a candidate stumbles due to weakness or collapses, the public deserves an explanation. They have received one.

    As I recall, Geo. W puked into the lap of the Japanese Prime minister. I don’t believe any of you asked any questions at the time. As with my comment about Trump, I am just pointing out the double standards I see in these pages. Double standards are illogical if one claims to be fair minded.

  29. Bill says:

    Rincon, you are simply spouting political B. S. and I rather suspect you know it.

    The subject was the news about Mrs. Clinton’s health and how the news was handled.

    The subject was not bout taxes.

    Now, if you want to get into a discussion about taxes and get into some more political tit for tat, then let us talk about the Clinton Foundation, the pay for play and the the Foundation’s seeming inability to file accurate tax returns.

  30. rincon says:

    Given your proposed constraints, it would be impossible for anyone to expose the double standards that are so common here. Luckily, you cannot muzzle me.

    Speaking of double standards, I note that there has been no discussion of, “Probably the most talked-about political story of the day,” which “comes courtesy of Newsweek, where reporter Kurt Eichenwald details Donald Trump’s intricate business ties with foreign businessmen, governments, “and even criminals” via his Trump Organization. With deals in nations such as Russia, Turkey, India, and Saudi Arabia, Eichenwald writes that conflicts of interest regarding national security would be impossible to avoid, even with Trump’s plan to put the business in a blind trust and turn it over to his kids. He concludes that the only way to avoid what he calls “legal bribery” is for the entire Trump family to sever itself from the sprawling Trump Organization if the candidate wins in November.” http://www.newser.com/story/231076/newsweek-trumps-foreign-ties-could-threaten-national-security.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_home.

    Of course, details about Trump’s dealings with foreign citizens are murky, since business people are not subjected to most of the transparency requirements that government officials such as our friend Hillary, have on a daily basis.

    Anyone care to comment, or would you rather ignore it and wait for another perceived sin by Clinton?

  31. Patrick says:

    Rincon:

    The answer to your last question is yes.

    But of course, focusing on the potential issues with the democratic nominee for president CANT be partisan or political…right?

  32. Barbara says:

    Yes we have been presented with two turd sandwiches to choose from. I vote for the reset button. I for one refuse to open wide and swallow – at least today.

  33. Barbara says:

    Constitution Day to celebrate the signing of our founding document is Sept 17th. Here is a link to events from Hillsdale college. The events are live streamed, but also archived. Today’s discussion was on Trump and Conservatism. It will be available probably tomorrow through the archives.

    https://constitutionday.hillsdale.edu/index.php?session=2

  34. Anonymous says:

    In a perfect world we would have better choices. The world is not perfect. It is sure that one will win out over the other. The question then becomes what will our world look like if one or the other wins Which world do you want to live in? We know what a Clinton election means. No borders, activist supreme court, immigration without controls, greater government powers, no 2nd Amendment, larger entitlement programs, a nuclear Iran, an incoherent foreign policy, pay to play, the list goes on. Trump? Arrogant, abrasive and bombastic. He says he will control illegal immigration, fight terrorism and end corruption. Will he? I don’t know. I do know that wit4h Hillary we will not even get the promise. I work in a world of the possible. It is not always the desirable but if my principles cause me not to become an advocate for my my side then the other side wins If they win then what I wished for and fought for becomes even more unattainable. So Barbara, I understand your pain and your angst. If we are truly conservative we have to go into the arena with our imperfect champion.
    It is time to quit wailing and gnashing our teeth and quit the incessant predilection of conservatives for circular firing squads.

  35. Steve says:

    Anon, there is an alternative.

  36. Bill says:

    Aha! Trump, a businessman in a world wide economy does world wide business. Shame on him for having hotels and resorts in foreign lands.

    Gadzooks! We have found the perfect4 Achilles heel.

    Let’s hope that he and/or his wife will not be giving $500,000 half hour speeches if he becomes President.

  37. Rincon says:

    1) Trump has a boatload of scandals which have never been discussed here. I wonder why? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

    2) Trump is known to be far less that trustworthy. According to the New York Times, “”Indeed, based on the mountain of court records churned out over the span of Mr. Trump’s career, it is hard to find a project he touched that did not produce allegations of broken promises, blatant lies or outright fraud.” Politifact rates Trump’s statements as 15% true or mostly true, 15% half true and 70% false or mostly false. Clinton rates 50% true or mostly true, 22% half true and 28% false or mostly false.

    3) In addition to his dishonesty, Trump has an obsessive focus on himself, shows great vindictiveness when criticized, and has a history of excessively selfish behaviour.

    4) Is beholden to a myriad of corporations, including the Bank of China, for the continued success and survival of his wealth. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html
    He says to avoid a conflict of interest, he will pass control over to his kids. Anyone who feels that this would mitigate any conflicts of interest should apply with me to buy a bridge, slightly used.

    5) Trump refuses to release his income tax information.

    6) He has no political experience at all. Didn’t you guys say Obama was too inexperienced to be president?

    7) Trump has made a number of patently ridiculous statements http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/01/19/the-25-worst-quotes-from-donald-trump-n2106456 including such items as advocating censorship of the Internet in order to combat terrorism, a single payer (read socialized) health plan, and ditching NATO. And you know what you will think the worst thing he said was? “I know Hillary and I think she’d make a great president or vice-president.” – 2008 🙂

  38. Barbara says:

    “It is time to quit wailing and gnashing our teeth and quit the incessant predilection of conservatives for circular firing squads.”

    Anon – I can agree with everything you say except your conclusion. Trump supporters seem to think that any criticism of him will cost him the vote. I do not have to abandon the countries first principles and embrace leftist, liberal policies. When Trump lurches left as he has with his new maternity leave entitlement and expansion of EITC, expansion of Medicaid, and now his 35 percent tax on foreign made cars, conservatives need to speak out. He has been a lifelong liberal and his tendencies are to revert to this ideology. If we do not push in the opposite direction, Trump will continue down this liberal road until there is very little difference between a Trump and Hillary presidency. True conservatives will go into the arena not abandoning time tested principles of liberty and freedom. If Trump looses the election it will because he failed to understand these principles.

  39. Bill says:

    Barbara, I forgot to put in the info when I wrote the post and am in fact Anonymous.

    There is less than 2 months before the Presidential election.

    At this point, what purpose is served by lamenting the choices?

    Should we make a futile gesture and vote3 for a third party candidate? That may saitis satisfy our self view about adhering to our principles but will do nothing other than help the one candidate that has demonstrated that she is poles apart from our philosophy. A grand gesture but one that is counter productive.

    Should we stay home and not vote? Lots did in the last elections because the Republican candidate was not conservative enough or Christian enough. The result wars 8 years of Obama with the bonus of a few years of Hillary as Secretary of State.

    If you liked the last 8 years and think that the way our country should continue then by all means continue. Do I think Trump is a true conservative? I have my doubts. But, I am convinced, emotionally and intellectually that he is not as liberal as Mrs. Clinton. That is really all I need to know for I know for certain that after November, one or the other will be the President of the United States. The prospect of one of them gives me dyspepsia. The prospect of the other gives me nightmares.

  40. Steve says:

    Fancy way of saying compromise the one place where principles counts and vote for evil, lesser though it may be, vote for evil.

    Thanks Bill….it think.

  41. Barbara says:

    I voted for both Romney and McCain although I did not consider either of them to be conservatives or that committed to reversing the expansion of the federal leviathan. I did so because I was certain that both would be better than Obama.

    Now we have Trump. I have not been able to convince myself that there would be much difference between his administration and Hillary’s. It is quite obvious that he listens to his Marxist daughter Ivanka more so than any advisor. At her urging he came out with this expansion of the EITC and paid 6 weeks maternity leave with the explicit endorsement that it will apply to stay at home moms and gay couples. If he is willing to go with this Marxist program, I doubt there are any limits he would not adopt once he is in office. His idea to expand Medicaid knocked the legs out of all the Republican governors who refused to expand the program under Obamacare. It means there will be no repeal of Obamacare as well as it is a major component. Medicaid is going broke and he wants to expand it!

    His 35 percent tariff on foreign made cars would cripple trade, probably lead to a trade war, and very likely result in another Great Depression.

    I doubt he would want a 2nd term given his age, so I see nothing to restrain him. I certainly do not believe he is going to appointment Supreme Court justices who are originalists regardless of his list. Already I think he has sent up a trail ballon on appointing Peter Thiel.

    http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/09/15/trump-considering-billionaire-social-justice-warrior-supreme-court-sources-say/?utm_content=bufferdb0ba

    And yes, I do think there are some real conflicts of interests with his business dealings in how he conducts foreign policy.

    I guess I could go on and on, but it basically comes down to a complete lack of trust and a feeling we are all being sold a Trojan horse. I don’t believe anything the man says. I do believe he has his own self interest and the interest of his empire foremost in his mind. Many people ignored the red flags surrounding Obama. Trump has been a life-long liberal democrat (just like HIllary), a recurrent liar (just like Hillary). We know the damage Hillary has done because she has held elective office. Trump has been able to operate outside the lights, but I really believe he is just as evil as she is, and it will manifest itself once he is in office.

    The Congress has proven as effective as a wet noodle. If the Republicans hold Congress who would they be more inclined to push back on – their own candidate or a candidate of the opposing party who is not very popular to begin with? Hillary does not have the political skills of Obama. Maybe Congress would grow a spine and impeach her. Or given her medical condition, possibly find her unfit to serve?

    I really think it makes little difference in the trajectory of the country as to who is elected. Washington will never reform itself and will continue to expand government control over all aspects of our lives. Our only hope – and it’s a long shot – is an Article 5 Convention of States.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s