You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up

Just how dumb are neoconfederates?  Apparently pretty dumb.

I noticed this posting on “the Gift That Keeps On Giving” [aka, the Southern Heritage Preservation Group]:

Slave owners did not force anyone to fight in the south. Most southerners fought because the SOUTH WAS INVADED .

Slave owners certainly drove secession and forced the firing on Fort Sumter which started the Civil War.  Slave owners were behind all the illegal acts of violence perpetrated against the United States prior to the start of the war as well.  The confederacy seceded and wanted their independence in order to protect the institution of slavery.  That’s what the confederacy was fighting for.

And hypothetically, lets say the north was invaded by the south in 1860, most northerners would have fought the southerns as invaders, but not to free slaves.”

This particular non sequitur demonstrates how logic is not a part of their makeup.

The ignorance of history is appalling in the north.

Here we have a textbook example of the ironic statement.

Southerners know the truth because it was burned into their collective memories.

Apparently not, as we’ll see.

You should come down south and explore the burned out house ruins, overgrown with brush with only a chimney marking the homes prior existence.

So this nut would have us believe that the southern landscape is nothing more than burned out houses with only chimneys standing where the house used to be.

It was ‘heroic war’ by Sherman and others, waged on women and children in their homes, and would be considered war crimes today.

People who are ignorant of the law of armed conflict make the claim, but Sherman’s march wasn’t a war crime, and he didn’t wage war on women and children.

And this is what General Sherman’s commander -in – chief once had to say about fighting for self-determination and a people’s freedom :

‘Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world’.
Abraham Lincoln, Rep. U.S. Congress, 1847

And the confederacy wasn’t fighting for freedom or self-determination.  They were fighting to keep millions of people in bondage and to deny them their self-determination.

Even dumber are some of the comments:

SHPG4-29-14-1

Apparently this mental midget has never heard of the slave ship the “Wanderer.”  The “Wanderer,” perhaps the most notorious slave ship in the nineteenth century, was not owned by Northerners. It was owned by Charles Lamar, a planter from Savannah, Georgia. In November of 1858, five decades after the Atlantic slave trade was made illegal, they brought 400-500 Africans to a plantation on Jeckyll Island [spelling from a 19th-Century source], off the Georgia coast. Lamar and his two partners, John Johnson, a Louisiana sugar planter and apparently the original owner, and William Corrie of Charleston, South Carolina, owned the “Wanderer” and sailed her from Charleston to Africa, then deposited the slaves on one of Georgia’s sea islands, Jeckyll Island. She had been built in Long Island, New York as a racing schooner, but it was southerner Lamar who converted her to a slave ship.  More on the “Wanderer” here, here, here, and here.  Apparently this numbskull thinks slaves were forced on people.  If there wasn’t a demand for enslaved people, there wouldn’t have been a slave trade and no slaves would have been transported.  Finally, his assertion that two northern states had slavery until 1890 is simply ludicrous.  This people will say anything.

Next we have this comment:

SHPG4-29-14-2

 

Here’s another Einstein who has no clue of what he’s talking about.  I’ve gone into the case of US v. Jefferson Davis here.  R. E. Lee, James Longstreet, Joseph E. Johnston, and other confederate officers were indicted for Treason after the war.  Ulysses S. Grant had their indictments quashed because, he reasoned, they were covered by the terms of the surrender agreements.

On hearing of the indictment for Treason, Lee wrote to Grant:

Richmond, Virginia, June 13, 1865.

Lieutenant-General U. S. Grant, Commanding the Armies of the United States.

General: Upon reading the President’s proclamation of the 29th ult., I came to Richmond to ascertain what was proper or required of me to do, when I learned that, with others, I was to be indicted for treason by the grand jury at Norfolk. I had supposed that the officers and men of the Army of Northern Virginia were, by the terms of their surrender, protected by the United States Government from molestation so long as they conformed to its conditions. I am ready to meet any charges that may be preferred against me, and do not wish to avoid trial; but, if I am correct as to the protection granted by my parole, and am not to be prosecuted, I desire to comply with the provisions of the President’s proclamation, and, therefore, inclose the required application, which I request, in that event, may be acted on. I am, with great respect,

Your obedient servant,
R. E. Lee. [OR Series I, Vol 46, Part 3, pp. 12751276]

Grant forwarded this letter with his own indorsement:

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,

June 16, 1865.

In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole.  This is my understanding.  Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention.  Bad faith on the part of the Government or a construction of that convention subjecting officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men.  If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part.  I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally.  The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.

U. S. GRANT,

Lieutenant-General. [OR Series I, Vol 46, Part 3, p. 1276]

Grant replied to Lee on June 20, 1865:

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, June 20, 1865.

General R. E. LEE,

Richmond, Va.:

Your communications of date of the 13th instant, stating the steps you had taken after reading the President’s proclamation of the 29th ultimo, with a view of complying with its provisions when you learned that, with others you were to be indicted for treason by the grand jury at Norfolk: that you had supposed the officers and men of the Army of Northern Virginia were by the terms of their surrender protected by the United States Government from molestation so long as they conformed to its conditions; that you were ready to meet any charges that might be preferred against you, and did not wish to avoid trial, but that if you were correct as to the protection granted by your parole, and were not to be prosecuted, you desired to avail yourself of the President’s amnesty proclamation, and inclosing an application therefor, with the request that in that event it be acted, on has been received and forwarded to the Secretary of War, with the following opinion indorsed thereon by me:

In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from the further prosecution of them.

This opinion, I am informed, is substantially the same as that entertained by the Government. I have forwarded you application for amnesty and pardon to the President, with the following indorsement thereon:

Respectfully forwarded through the Secretary of War to the President, with the earnest recommendation that this application of General R. E. Lee for amnesty and pardon may be granted him. The oath of allegiance required by recent order of the President to accompany applications does not accompany applications does not accompany this for the reason, as I am informed by General Ord, the order requiring it had not reached Richmond when this was forwarded.

U. S. GRANT,

Lieutenant-General.

[OR Series I, Vol 46, Part 3, pp. 12861287]

You really can’t make up the silly things these people believe.

 

 

44 comments

  1. I stopped reading after “So this nut would have us believe that the southern landscape is nothing more than burned out houses with only chimneys standing where the house used to be.”

    Actually, that’s not true. YOU said that, not the person you’re slandering. HE said, “You should come down south and explore the burned out house ruins, overgrown with brush with only a chimney marking the homes prior existence.“

    “…southern landscape is nothing more than” is your false, devious and lying misinterpretation. He didn’t suggest or even hint that the “…southern landscape is nothing more than”. He said there are “burned out house ruins” in the South — not that they comprise the totality of the Southern landscape. That is your false interpretation.

    1. Actually, Connie, it is the clear meaning of what he said. “You should come down south and explore the burned out house ruins, overgrown with brush with only a chimney marking the homes prior existence.“ He makes it seem like they’re all over the place.

      So how many of these exist? And of those that exist, how many of them are actually from the Civil War and how many are from fires that happened since? “There is a persistent tradition that Sherman’s troops burned vast numbers of rural homes–‘thousands’ was the word used by Chaplain Bradley–and in the decades after the war any chimneys standing alone about the Georgia countryside got the lugubrious name ‘Sherman’s sentinels.’ But what evidence there is indicates that only a minority of the houses along the army’s path were fired by the Northern soldiers–probably a smaller proportion than during the evacuation of North Georgia. That is the impression to be gained from reading the more meticulous diarists; a house in the countryside going up in flames was noted. Henry Hitchcock was constantly on the watch for them but did not note very many. Later studies of the areas the army passed through likewise show that the majority of the houses survived the holocaust of 1864. Using detailed maps prepared by one of Sherman’s topographical engineers for the sixty-odd-mile stretch between Covington and Milledgeville, a geographer at the University of Georgia went back over the route in 1955 and discovered that many of the structures had survived not only Sherman’s passage, but also accidental fires and termites, and were peacefully succumbing to dry rot. As for Milledgeville and the surrounding area, the author of another study found that ‘the actual destruction of private dwellings … was rare indeed, either in the town or along the route of march.’ ” [Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers & Civilians During Sherman’s Campaign, pp. 275-276]

      But then, we all know you’re not interested in the actual history, are you, Connie?

  2. Al, you didn’t say, “He makes it seem like they’re all over the place.” You said, “So this nut would have us believe that the southern landscape is nothing more than burned out houses…”

    You got called on it and now you’re backtracking.

    Sherman’s path in Georgia in 1864 wasn’t the only place where the [edit]yankee burning took place: They torched entire towns and communities all over the South. Here’s just a partial list:

    Osceola, Missouri, burned to the ground, September 24, 1861
    Dayton, Missouri, burned, January 1 to 3, 1862
    Columbus, Missouri, burned, reported on January 13, 1862
    Bentonville, Arkansas, partly burned, February 23, 1862
    Winton, North Carolina, burned, reported on February 21, 1862
    Bluffton, South Carolina, burned, reported June 6, 1863
    Bledsoe’s Landing, Arkansas, burned, October 21, 1862
    Hamblin’s, Arkansas, burned, October 21, 1862
    Donaldsonville, Louisiana, partly burned, August 10, 1862
    Athens, Alabama, partly burned, August 30, 1862
    Randolph, Tennessee, burned, September 26, 1862
    Elm Grove and Hopefield, Arkansas, burned, October 18, 1862
    Napoleon, Arkansas, partly burned, January 17, 1863
    Mound City, Arkansas, partly burned, January 13, 1863
    Hopefield, Arkansas, burned, February 21, 1863
    Eunice, Arkansas, burned, June 14, 1863
    Gaines Landing, Arkansas, burned, June 15, 1863
    Sibley, Missouri, burned June 28, 1863
    Hernando, Mississippi, partly burned, April 21, 1863
    Austin, Mississippi, burned, May 23, 1863
    Columbus, Tennessee, burned, reported February 10, 1864
    Meridian, Mississippi, destroyed, February 3 to March 6, 1864
    Washington, North Carolina, sacked and burned, April 20, 1864
    Hallowell’s Landing, Alabama, burned, reported May 14, 1864
    Newtown, Virginia, ordered to be burned, ordered May 30, 1864
    Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia, burned, June 12, 1864
    Rome, Georgia, partly burned, November 11, 1864
    Atlanta, Georgia, burned, November 15, 1864
    Camden Point, Missouri, burned, July 14, 1864
    Kendal’s Grist-Mill, Arkansas, burned, September 3, 1864
    Shenandoah Valley, devastated, reported October 1, 1864 by sheridan
    Griswoldville, Georgia, burned, November 21, 1864
    Somerville, Alabama, burned, January 17, 1865
    McPhersonville, South Carolina, burned, January 30, 1865
    Barnwell, South Carolina, burned, reported February 9, 1865
    Columbia, South Carolina, burned, reported February 17, 1865
    Winnsborough, South Carolina, pillaged and partly burned, February 21, 1865
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama, burned, April 4, 1865

    1. Sorry, Connie, but as usual, you’re wrong. As I said, it was the clear meaning of what he posted. As to your listing, where in that list can we tour all those burned out houses that were mentioned? I’ve already discussed Columbia’s burning in this blog. I wonder if many of your listed events are the same? And what do you mean by “partly burned?” Does that mean the burning of government buildings or munitions manufacturing capability? VMI, by the way, was a legitimate military target.

      1. “Thieves, Murderers, Trespassers”:
        The Mythology of Sherman’s March”

        http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

    2. It was a hard, hard war. I got harder, especially on the South, the longer it went on. Such is the nature of war. As Sherman said:

      “You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.”

      If they has simply gave up, they could have kept a lot more of their property. But no, they didn’t.

      1. All true. War is a very terrible thing, and anyone who doesn’t want terrible things to happen to them as part of a war ought not to start a war.

  3. Not interested in history? Sure I’m interested in it. I’m certainly not UNinterested in it. But I am MORE interested in OTHER things, among them the antics and arrogance of self-appointed civil war thought cops and people who are motivated by the desire to denigrate others and to evilize Southern white people.

    1. Come on, now, Connie. You and I both know you don’t care about accurate history. It’s okay, you can admit it. 🙂

  4. Al, they burned more than out houses.

    Sure I care about accurate history. That’s why I don’t care for flogger blogs. Accurate history isn’t your interest, either. Demonizing white Southerners, especially Confederate heritage supporters, is your primary interest. All the war posts are just so much window dressing.

    1. Once again, Connie, where in that list can we tour the burned houses with only chimneys left that were posted about?

      And you quite obviously don’t care for accuracy in reading either.

      1. Jimmy Dick · · Reply

        We cannot tour all the burned out buildings and cities and see the giant scar of devastation left by Sherman’s men, but we can sure get directed to all the antebellum structures that weren’t burned to the ground and have survived over 150 years of which there sure seem to be quite a few.

        1. “A reporter discovered this in 1958 while researching a story about the Civil War in Marietta, Georgia. A Southern matron with whom he spoke gave him a glass of iced tea and told him earnestly that Sherman’s demons had burned the town to the ground when they came through in 1864. Afterward, the reporter commented dryly, ‘we went outside to admire the fine antebellum homes.’ ”
          http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

    2. I would hope they burned more than “out houses.” What good would that do in a war?

  5. Kenneth Almquist · · Reply

    “You should come down south and explore the burned out house ruins, overgrown with brush with only a chimney marking the homes prior existence.“

    By curious coincidence, I went down south and saw exactly what you describe. The house had burned down about ten years earlier. If the house had burned down 150 years ago, the brush would have been replaced with trees and I doubt the chimney would still be standing.

  6. Well, it’s not chimneys still standing, but columns… I guess you will say it doesn’t “count.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millwood_%28Richland_County,_South_Carolina%29

    There are many such ruins of antebellum houses and other buildings, not necessarily burned during the war, but destroyed afterward, as a result of the war, reconstruction and the economic oppression of the region for generations afterward.

    But my point is, you are putting your own deliberately false interpretation, born of your hatred and your lust to denigrate, on what he said.

    Your statement, “Actually, Connie, it is the clear meaning of what he said.,,” No, Al, that is the clear meaning of YOUR deliberate MISinterpretation.

    “He makes it seem like they’re all over the place.” Ah, no. You are substituting your (deliberate) misperception for his intention, HE doesn’t MAKE it SEEM like… Seeming is a function of your perception. He makes absolutely, absolutely, absolutely NO MENTION of how many burned out ruins there are to be explored, or where they are located, except in the South. Everything else that you are attributing to his statement is YOUR ADDITION to it.

    1. The point he made was you can tour burned out homes all over the south. So far you’ve found one. “Destroyed as a result of the war …” that the confederates started. Boo hoo hoo. Yes, he does make it seem like they’re all over the place. You just don’t like that another confederate heritage idiot was outed for being stupid. And what about those alleged two northern states that had slavery until 1890?

      1. There has never been and decisive proof that “Yankees” burned that house.

        1. Though I will accept that Hampton didn’t burn his own house. 😉 I think we can say that there is a high probability there were Yankees who burned the house. I don’t see any evidence it was done on Sherman’s orders or on the orders of any other officer of competent authority to make such an order.

          1. We can speculate but it is not a proven fact, nor should it be presented as such.

          2. I think the probability is extremely high that some Union soldiers were the perpetrators. Are there any other suspects?

          3. Don’t know. Never researched it.

          4. Interesting topic though. Might be worth a gander.

  7. You can find many sites of homes and other structures across the South that were still standing at the war’s end but were destroyed afterward because of the war that the [edit]yankees started with their illegal invasion.

    You aren’t interested in accurate history. If you were, you would simply correct what you find that’s inaccurate. However, the internet is just full of inaccurate history, most of which you ignore because what you’re really interested in is indulging your craving to denigrate, make fun, put down and vilify Southern heritage supporters.

    1. Once again, Connie, you prove you have no conception of what accurate history is, and you’re clueless as to the legality of the Federal war effort. I am correcting what I find that’s inaccurate in addition to showing why the same group keeps spouting the same inaccuracies. So then many structures across the south were still standing at the end of the war but were destroyed afterward. Good to know that you agree the individual in question has no idea what he’s talking about.

    2. Jimmy Dick · · Reply

      I always love it when the Civil War is referred to as an illegal Yankee invasion. That part about Ft. Sumter gets ignored in favor of the victimization defense. Sort of like how the South seceded over the issue of slavery, but that got changed to a fictitious state’s rights defense after the war. Good thing we have the primary sources that tell us what really caused the war written by the people that started the war. Oh, that’s right, you ignore those too.

      Let’s see, illegal war started by the South, check. Burned buildings that still stand as fully functional tourist attractions as they were before the war, check. Multiple claims of making up history as historians point to the documents written in the actual time period, check. The list goes on and on. It’s old. It’s ignorant. It’s Southern Heritage (TM).

      1. I’m not a psychologist, but I keep thinking “inferiority complex” every time I see something from a confederate heritage type.

        1. Jimmy Dick · · Reply

          Exactly!

  8. jfepperson · · Reply

    True story: In the mid-1950s, a geography prof at the University of Georgia took a detailed map used by one of Sherman’s units (XIV Corps, I think), and embarked on a study of what happened to each building marked on the map. While he did find that many had been burned, most had been burned *after* the war. Only a handful were burned during the March itself. I can’t promise anything, but I *think* I have a photocopy of the article he published, which I would be happy to scan in and email to anyone. The full story is in one of the footnotes in Grimsley’s book. I’m sure Al has heard/read this before.

      1. jfepperson · · Reply

        Didn’t see it 😦

        1. LOL … when the comments section gets large enough it’s very easy to overlook these things. 🙂

    1. Most communities have an interest in dramatizing/enhancing/exaggerating their local history. They do it all the time, for a variety of reasons. (You should hear some of the wild, total BS stories the carriage drivers tell the tourists in my town, just because they sound good and people will believe them.) In Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, that ends up being a lot of exaggeration about the excesses of Sherman’s troops, including that they destroyed structures that didn’t actually exist at the time. What happened was hard enough, without having to make up atrocities that never happened solely for the purpose of stoking the resentment of people living in the 21st century.

      1. Ken Noe · · Reply

        I spent a decade telling my Georgia neighbors that no, Sherman never got near the place. I think Croxton just torching a couple of buildings made them feel slighted.

        1. Poor guys. Left out of all the fun. 🙂

          1. jfepperson · ·

            I was at a math conference and the wife of one of the locals was telling us how badly Sherman treated the area. I was too polite to point out that he never even passed through …

          2. Obviously by not blindly accepting any claim made about Sherman you must therefore hate the south and everyone who lives in it, Jim. 😉

  9. Pat Eakin · · Reply

    I’m sorry that I didn’t discover this site before now. I have been a member of “Mason Dixon Chat Forum” It was once a large group, founded by a Southerner, on MSN.com, then MSN dropped their discussion groups and MDCF went to multiply.com. When they dropped it and MDCF is now but a shadow of what it used to be. It can be found today on Google+ groups. The current manager is a current member of “Study Civil War.”. The problem is, she makes no effort to prove or validate here claims that issues other than slavery led to the “War for Southern Independence”.

    What I have noticed about the “Neocons” is that they never seem to be able to find any experts with Phds in American History to validate any of their claims. Over the years I have quoted from
    Edward Ayers, Gary Gallagher, Kenneth Stampp, and other professors of history and found that their opinions as to what led to the war in1861 agree with my conclusions. None of them cited unfair tariffs as a reason for the war.

    1. Thanks for your comment. I like to look at the words of the participants at the time of the events. They can’t be accused of being “revisionist Yankees.”

  10. Pat Eakin · · Reply

    Why do the Neocons know so little about prewar history? Or do they find it to their advantage to ignore it? They never mention John Breckenridge, and why the deep South preferred him over Stephen Douglas. No mention of Howell Cobb, the man whose name is on the Confederate constitution, and his stand on tariffs when he was Buchanan’s Sec of Treasury. No explanation for why the South insisted on a fugitive slave law in 1850, and why the declarations of secession in 1860 emphasized slavery. Why do they like to tell us about John C Calhoun and the South Carolina nullification of 1833, but stop talking about it when it comes to the rest of the facts? Truth is, the other Southern states did not support the Nullifiers, Jackson was a Southerner, and SC was willing to accept Henry Clay’s compromise.

    I have been willing to admit to the faults of Northern Americans. I have acknowledge Northern complicity in slavery, and its profiting from slave labor. I have given examples of Northern racism, acknowledging that not all Unionist were antislavery. Look up Indiana Senator Thomas Hendricks. So I do blame the North for its role in the events that led to the war.

    1. For them, it’s heritage instead of history.

      Nullification was ostensibly about the tariff, but in reality it was about protection of slavery, which John C. Calhoun admitted in a private letter: “I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institutions of the Southern States, and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel, or submit to have . . . their domestick [sic] institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situated, the denial of the right of the state to interfere constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking than all other causes.” [John C. Calhoun to Virgil Maxcy, 11 September 1830]

  11. Pat Eakin · · Reply

    Al, Before Calhoun’s attempt to nullify a federal law, wasn’t he a gung ho nationalist, along with his fellow War Hawk Henry Clay? If you remember your history, they wanted to attack Canada and that led to the War of 1812. So, if Calhoun was willing to push the entire nation into a war, to liberate land hundreds of miles from his home state, was he a really a state’s right person, or nationalist who hoped that his ideals would dominate the USA?

    What about Howell Cobb? I’m sorry but I have to admit that I had never heard of him until I started doing research on tariffs as a cause of the Civil War. Much to my surprise I found that he led the Montgomery convention in 1860, and if you look at his career you will see that he certainly would have known about any tariffs or taxes that were unfair to the South. So why is it that I cant get any of the “proud of Southern History” crowd to acknowledge that he even existed?

    1. Calhoun was indeed an ardent nationalist and one of the war hawks. But for protection of slavery he became an ardent state rights advocate. I think you’ll find most southern heritage advocates will refer to Cobb as an idiot. For them, it’s all about heritage and nothing about history.

      1. It’s funny you mentioned Calhoun’s return to states’ rights; a cohort in my graduate program is arguing against that in her thesis.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: