Jeff_column

The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – The New Republic

Jeff Cumberbatch - New Chairman of the FTC

Jeff Cumberbatch – New Chairman of the FTC

It would appear as if the aspirations of those seemingly very few of us who harbour “high hopes” of our nation assuming formal constitutional republican status in our fiftieth year of independent statehood have been dashed by the recent prime ministerial announcement that there is the likelihood of a Royal visit in November this year. Of course, there may well be those constant “republicans” who will hopefully view this as indicative confirmation of a break with the British monarchy, and liken the proposed visit to that of the royal couple who attended our first Independence ceremony in 1966.

There may be some force in this reasoning. After all, the visit of British [I assume] royalty to our fiftieth anniversary celebration of a break from Britain does seem particularly incongruous, but I prefer to err with the view that this may simply be good old Barbadian hospitality and, since the royal family is the bloodline in which our executive authority formally resides currently, it would be bad manners not to invite its representation at our jubilee celebrations.

In other words, the announcement was, if nothing else, decidedly cryptic, and more so given the occasion and audience. So I shall continue my musings today on the likelihood of our becoming a constitutional republic, much, maybe, like the ant in the song… that thought that he could move a rubber tree plant. Fortunately, my sentiment for the change does not depend on mere political whimsy.

As I noted in this space last week, a significant amount of the opposition to “Republicanism” –I use the capital R advisedly, as will become apparent later- is owed to partisan political sentiment, and I refer to both of the occasions on which the respective parties touted the notion. This apart, there may be a few who are still wedded to the phenomenon of monarchy, although not a localized version of the concept that would, in any event, contravene our constitutional ethos of egalitarianism.

However, there are also those who simply have no idea of what republicanism means, and do not care to find out. Simply put, it is a form of governance where supreme power resides in the people and is exercised through their elected representatives in accordance with law. Thus republicanism is clearly our current practical reality; all that is needed –what I call the irreducible minimum- to achieve the formal Constitutional process of “Republicanism” is the express location of formal executive authority under the Constitution in a native head of state.

Nonetheless, the amalgamation of these various dissenting groups does present formidable numerical, if scarcely rational, opposition to the process. When their counter is not premised on the minutiae of appointing the local executive authority –will he or she be elected or selected? By whom or what? For how long? -; there is the issue of timing and prioritization –not now in our current economic state; not with this Government; not before everyone has a guaranteed reliable supply of running water in his or her household; not yet; the financial costs –of altering the names of places and institutions; of creating new letterheads; and of changing legislative documents and contracts, [one wag even suggested we would have to renegotiate ratified treaties]. In respect of this last, one recalls Oscar Wilde’s definition of a cynic – “a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”.

One argument that merits some consideration, however, is that of subjecting the entire process to a referendum. While this proposition may be, at first blush, irrefutable in the interest of direct democracy, there are, nevertheless, some factors that may substantially relegate this to a head count of opposition rather than it becoming the reasoned sophisticated conclusion that should attend our public affairs.

For instance, the question should be precisely put so as to avoid misunderstanding but, as some of us are aware, a question is not asked in a vacuum, but exists, rather, in a cloud of assumptions and (mis)understandings. In this regard, an apparently simple referendum such as “Should Barbados become a republic? Yes or No” could easily be converted into one of those questions in Latin that suggests the answer by the first word used. Presumably, most of those in favour of the change to formal status will vote “Yes”, although there may be some who would consider the question nonsensical since we are already a republic by convention.

However, the question appears predisposed to dissent, whether this is based on personal opposition to the idea, politically partisan sentiment because of the identity and propaganda of the proponents or opponents; sheer ignorance of the concept proposed; or merely the way in which the reference is formulated.

It may be argued that the general election process is not much different, but that, at least, is demanded by constitutional fiat. The referendum is not now part of our constitutional architecture and, always, the question begs asking, which political measures should be rendered subject to this process?

In the context of government, for examples, Independence was not, at least formally; accession to the Caribbean Court of Justice was not; and the existence and configuration of the Senate were not. Should we include then all taxation proposals; ambassadorial appointments; what should be taught at UWI; and which historical sites should be considered apt for preservation….?

A quotation from a former British politician on referenda is instructive. According to him, after making reference to their use by Hitler and Mussolini, “ I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system…on the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak…”

Tags: , , , ,

117 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – The New Republic”

  1. Well Well & Consequences January 18, 2016 at 12:18 PM #

    That article is frightening, it suggests that despite the real estate and housing bubble going bust as far back as 2004-2005, not one of these jackasses saw it fit to put a freeze on constructing, instead they listened to all the other greedy jackasses cow, bizzy, bjerkham, tempro and kept builiding, building as long as ever6 kickback came along, with no future plans in place, but have the nerve to yap none stop about a world financial crisis, do they even know what that meant in the context of building and construction………Miller there really is a problem.

    Like

  2. Bustopher Jones January 18, 2016 at 12:47 PM #

    So Millertheanunnaki, would the British help Trinidad & Tobago? They have removed her as head of state, although they still use her Privy Council as their final court. You are scaremongering, that ‘s all. Who needs the British anyway?

    Like

  3. David January 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM #

    If Barbados intends to replace the monarchy we should do it with dignity and good sense

    Like

  4. Peltdownman January 18, 2016 at 12:56 PM #

    No withstanding all the so-called “intellectual” arguments in favour of a Republic, I am forced to ask why a government so beleaguered, so absolutely out of their depth, can now want to force through a Republic. Over the past 40 years, there has been at least one parliament where the government had over 2/3rd majority. Do you not think that this Prime Minister, this government, has not looked at Turkey, Rwanda and Burundi and seen what can happen when a government gets the power to change the constitution? Have they not tested the waters and found out that Bajans will never rise up no matter what is perpetrated on them? It is scary to think that these people could have absolute power as is now enjoyed by Erdugan in Turkey.

    Like

  5. millertheanunnaki January 18, 2016 at 1:04 PM #

    @ Bustopher Jones January 18, 2016 at 12:47 PM
    “Who needs the British anyway?”

    The British Monarch is not the HoS of T&T and has no Constitutional obligations.
    Don’t you find T&T retention’s of the British Privy Council a bit hypocritical when the CCJ is right in its own front room?

    BTW, Barbados cannot do without the British. Check the amount of tourist arrivals from Britain. Without Britain there is no tourism to prop up your one cylinder economy.
    Barbados is nothing without Britain, however you cut it.
    Now deal with that, Buster!

    Like

  6. David January 18, 2016 at 1:12 PM #

    @Peltdownman

    You assumption why we should not jettison the monarchy is scary.

    Like

  7. Bustopher Jones January 18, 2016 at 2:11 PM #

    So, Miller, are yo u saying the tourists will stop coming once we abandon the monarchy? Oh dear!

    Should we not beg them to become a colony of theirs then? Then they will be right at home.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. David January 18, 2016 at 2:17 PM #

    @Jeff

    You have seen the news that Antigua will hold a referendum to poll the population whether to join the CCJ?

    Interesting times!

    Like

  9. Well Well & Consequences January 18, 2016 at 3:06 PM #

    Polls are popular in developed and forward thinking societies, the people’s input is vital. They give one a sense of moving forward. I can’t imagine that in 2016 there are those who would be against the idea and have the nerve to call themselves developed and first world, while the mentality is still so 17th century.

    Like

  10. millertheanunnaki January 18, 2016 at 5:00 PM #

    @ Bustopher Jones January 18, 2016 at 2:11
    “So,Miller, are you saying the tourists will stop coming once we abandon the monarchy? Oh dear!”

    No JA, I am not saying that at all. I am responding to your bold stupid assertion of “Who needs the British anyway?” You do!

    I am saying that if the British don’t come as tourists or buy real estate Bajans asses are grass. All the hell Barbados got is seawater and sand and the day BA, Virgin Atlantic, Thompson Tours and Thomas Cook stop landing at GAIA crapaud smoke your pipe, according to the Mighty Chalkie.

    The Brits go all over the world to places like Thailand, Dominican Republic and Cuba which are all republics. If you guys continue to make Barbados unattractive by perpetrating crimes against visitors, with garbage piling up, rats running around Bridgetown as if a carnival for rodents is on show and generally despoiling the enviornment thereby compromising your public health systems Barbados, republic or monarchy, would be “blacklisted” as a no go place for health and safety of British travellers even before you can shout “Jack Robinson” or the cat can lick his ears.

    Why not heed the immortal words of the legendary Joe Tex and hold on to what you’ve got.
    And if you think other countries don’t want your British tourists,
    Just treat them bad and tell them to piss off.
    Then St. Lucia, Jamaica and Cuba will have your share
    Before you can travel from Sandy Lane to IlLaro Court.

    Like

  11. Gabriel January 18, 2016 at 5:55 PM #

    Miller
    You have said it all to Bustopher who seem not to understand what he wrote.The IBC’s and Tourism saved Barbados from bankruptcy after the rules of the WTO put paid to sugar subsidies.Barbados must continue to be Little England if it is to survive,plain and simple.With Chinese,Japanese tourism all a pipe dream we must rely on the Brits,the Yanks and the Canajuns to keep choosing the bajan way and that means friendly people,clean streets,safe streets,clean water,good food and everybody on board sharing the pie equally.

    Like

  12. Jeff Cumberbatch January 18, 2016 at 7:22 PM #

    David, I saw that item. I also saw where they threatened to renege on it if it became too politicised. Note, too, that it the referendum constitutionally required there for some alterations to that document.

    Like

  13. Vincent Haynes January 18, 2016 at 7:46 PM #

    Jeff Cumberbatch January 18, 2016 at 7:22 PM #

    UK is also going for a referendum over the EU,possibly within 6 months……..will little england follow??

    Like

  14. balance January 18, 2016 at 7:59 PM #

    “When Barbados became independent, she had to apply to Home Office for citizenship in UK as she still lived, worked and had her family there. I believe that privilege went out with independence, unless you qualified for status through other means, which I understand are getting fewer and fewer.”

    Would try to kill two birds with one stone. With regards to Jeffs’s question. I am thinking about birthright since prior to 1966 i was a British citizen born in the United kingdom and Colonies with right to a passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is the case with persons from non independent British colonies like Montserrat and Bermuda for instance. There was no Barbadian passport prior to Independence from Britain.

    Like

  15. Vincent Haynes January 18, 2016 at 9:01 PM #

    It all boils down to getting good governance and if we have to flavour it with being a republic……….so be it.

    Like

  16. Due Diligence January 18, 2016 at 9:03 PM #

    Jeff

    You mentioned Oscar Wilde’s definition of a cynic – “a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”.

    And here I was thinking that was Freundel Stuart’s definition of a cynic

    Like

  17. Well Well & Consequences January 18, 2016 at 10:07 PM #

    Balance…don’t know if this helps but the lady in question was born in 1933, there were no Barbados passports so she also qualified and possessed a British passport, born in Barbados and qualified under colonies….but once Barbados got independent, she had to change that passport….while living in England.

    Like

  18. Well Well & Consequences January 18, 2016 at 10:15 PM #

    I hope those against polling now realize that it’s the norm worldwide to engage the people on each and every issue. I have voted so many times in the US on one issue or another, I can’t even remember a quarter of them. It’s the norm, the public must be brought into discussion. I don’t know how else it’s supposed to happen.

    Like

  19. Colonel Buggy January 18, 2016 at 10:16 PM #

    balance January 18, 2016 at 5:51 AM #
    Unless the UK Citizenship laws have been changed in recent times, a person born in Barbados before 1966, has no automatic right to a British Passport/ Citizenship, unless the parents were full United Kingdom Colonies.
    I was born before 1966, emigrated to the UK in the mid 60’s , using a Barbados Passport. 4-1/2 years later I had to apply for British Citizenship which entitled me to a British Passport. My son ,born in Barbados, after I return home, is automatically entitled to British Citizenship.
    Persons who left Barbados for the UK before 1966, using a British Passport, after 1966 ,also had to apply for British Citizenship if they so desired.

    Like

  20. Colonel Buggy January 18, 2016 at 10:18 PM #

    Line # 4/5 ,t should have read “Full United Kingdom Citizens.”

    Like

  21. Colonel Buggy January 18, 2016 at 10:27 PM #

    David January 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM #
    There is civil disobedience, collect all the water bills and dump them in St.Barnabus,
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    A fellow on the block told me that the affected people could kill two birds with a big rock. While protesting about the ever coming water bills, they could also protest about the solid waste tax, and what a better way to do it than to fill the plastic buckets which the BWA has given them, with Solid Waste, China Construction Company style, and deposit them on the door step at St Barnabus.

    Like

  22. Exclaimer January 19, 2016 at 12:12 AM #

    @ Jeff,

    Would a move to republicanism instill the notion of pride, industry and a fervent form of black nationalism within the Bajan Negro?

    I am currently in Barbados and to be honest with you it always simultaneously shocks and underwhelms me at how the apartheid system is woven within the mind set of our government and her citizens. The current role of our government is to coerce, bully and discriminate against her Negro population.

    The concept of “Republicanism” is a misnomer in a country whose Negro population remains marginalised and locked outside of the decision making process.

    Like

  23. balance January 19, 2016 at 4:00 AM #

    I am appreciative of the comments of Well Well and Colonel Buggy to what some may regard as a non-issue since Barbados is now supposedly independent but i am curious as to whether persons born in Barbados before independence are not NOT ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT TO LEGITIMATELY AND FREELY ENTER BRITAIN HAVING BEEN REGISTERED AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES AT BIRTH? CAN MY BIRTHRIGHT BE LEGISLATED AWAY BY LEGISLATION AFTER THE FACT?
    GREETINGS
    THANKS FOR YOUR RESPONSE AND FOR THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED THUS FAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE APTLY DESCRIBED AS A COMPLEX ISSUE. HOWEVER, MY QUERY REMAINS THE SAME.
    AM I NOT ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT TO LEGITIMATELY AND FREELY ENTER BRITAIN HAVING BEEN REGISTERED AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES AT BIRTH? CAN MY BIRTHRIGHT BE LEGISLATED AWAY BY LEGISLATION AFTER THE FACT?

    I WAS BORN IN 1947 IN BARBADOS. BARBADOS WAS GOVERNED BY GREAT BRITAIN. I GREW UP UNDER THE UNION JACK. I KNEW OF NO OTHER FLAG. AS A BOY, I REMEMBER HAVING TO COMPULSORILY LINE THE STREETS IN THE BROILING SUN TO WAVE FLAGS WHEN A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY VISTED THE OVERSEAS KINGDOM.

    ALL BARBADIANS PRIOR TO INDEPENDENCE IN 1966 HELD PASSPORTS ISSUED UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WHICH TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES MADE US CITIZENS OF GREAT BRITAIN.

    AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, I WAS NOT STATELESS AND I AM AT A LOSS AS TO HOW THAT BIRHTRIGHT CAN BE LEGISLATED AWAY BY A SET OF COMPLICATED LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO DENY PEOPLE OF THE COLONIES LIKE ME THEIR INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

    BIRTHRIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY LEGISLATION OR OTHERWISE. I COULD UNDERSTAND IF THE LAWS WERE APPPLICABLE TO THOSE BORN IN THE COLONIES AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES BECAME INDEPENDENT BUT SURELY NOT TO THOSE HAVING A RIGHT TO BRITISH PASSPORTS AT BIRTH.

    I WOULD BE A FOOL TO LEAVE BARBADOS TO LIVE IN BRITAIN OR ANYWHERE ELSE BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT BIRTHRIGHT UNDER THE CROWN ENTITLES ME TO THE RIGHT TO LEGITIMATELY AND FREELY ENTER BRITAIN LIKE THOSE BORN ON THE MAINLAND AND TO APPLY FOR A BRITISH PASSPORT.

    Like

  24. Jeff Cumberbatch January 19, 2016 at 5:10 AM #

    Balance, tell you what. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Next time you enter England, give the spiel that you have screamed above to the Immigration officer and inform him that you plan to take legal action if he refuses to comply. Incidentally, Barbados was never really a “colony” of Britain

    Like

  25. Well Well & Consequences January 19, 2016 at 9:44 AM #

    Exclaimer…..excellent.

    On the Errol Barrow thread, I saw a prime example and posted a corresponding comment.

    Like

  26. Well Well & Consequences January 19, 2016 at 9:56 AM #

    Balance….in reality, that is how it should be, but you’re are dealing with people who have been living their own bullshit fantasies and delusions of owning others for 1200 years, so with the stroke of a pen decide that they can wipe out that inalienable right.

    Who is to say that the legislation still does not exist….it’s not like they will show it to anyone.

    Recently in the US, this dude decided to do some research in the dirty South to see if they had really remove slavery from the statute books, turned out that 150 years after the abolition of slavery, it still had not been ratified, making enslaving others in the South, still legal. Some jackass in the schools started sending kids homecwith survey forms, one of the questions was asking parents w if they would prefer to be slaves. Parents had to expose it to the newspapers.

    You are dealing with evil at an extremely high level…..the roles of local politicians is to keep that evil in play for another 1200 years. By keeping information from the people, they are willingly doing the job that defines their existence.

    Like

  27. Vincent Haynes January 19, 2016 at 10:48 AM #

    Well Well & Consequences January 19, 2016 at 9:44 AM #

    Chuckle……just up your street,wallowing in the holy knowledge of being a “Bajan Negro”….enjoy.

    By the way 1200 years ago the Africans had enslaved most of europe……lol……things like that do not suite your warped agenda though…….carry on smartly.

    Like

  28. Sunshine Sunny Shine January 19, 2016 at 11:43 AM #

    Going republic must be a decision of the people in the form of a referendum. Fruendel Stuart has proven himself one that cannot be trusted. The fact that he is pushing his agenda without proper announcement to the people is indicative that this man is a practicing Idi Amin. Republic yes, under Fruendel Stuart not for shite.

    Like

  29. Well Well & Consequences January 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM #

    Vincent…it was earlier than 1200 years ago, but what difference does a couple centuries make when slavery is involved….of course you are telling me…black Moors enslaved whites so what is wrong with whites enslaving blacks….good going Vincent….you will reach your destination yet.

    Like

  30. Well Well & Consequences January 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM #

    SSS…… I told them already that the republic they are fantasizing about with themselves as SUPREME LEADERS answerable only to themselves and not a word to the people who are the ones with supreme powers, will end up being the be all and end all of all their bullshit, but I know they will never believe me…but too bad, I love a laugh.

    Like

  31. Colonel Buggy January 19, 2016 at 10:01 PM #

    balance January 19, 2016 at 4:00 AM #
    Maybe if you were Australian , New Zealander or of British descent born in one of the Brit colonies, you would have that right. When I applied for my British Citizenship, my Officer Commanding had to sigh the documents. He was Australian and gave me a dressing down for applying for Brit Citizenship. He told me that he had no intention of applying fro British Citizenship. Good for him, he does not have to. He is free to come and go as he pleases, into the UK ,under the grandfather,and great grandfather clause. Very few of us in the Caribbean in after November 1966, could have claim a right of stay in the United Kingdom, because of a grandfather , or great grand father having been born in the United Kingdom.
    Do you recall Brigadier Powell’s speech in 1968?

    Like

  32. balance January 19, 2016 at 10:25 PM #

    “Incidentally, Barbados was never really a “colony” of Britain”
    really , I never knew that. Good thing I raised the topic. Shows one is never too old to learn.

    And I would refer them to my legal advisor Mr Jeff Cumberbatch who I am sure would teach them a thing or two about rights. By the way, heard on the BBC today an heterosexual couple getting ready to petition the courts on the grounds of equality for the right to enter into a civil union which apparently is only designed to accommodate same sex couples.

    Like

  33. balance January 19, 2016 at 10:29 PM #

    “Do you recall Brigadier Powell’s speech in 1968”
    Yes I do but I have no difficulty with it. I am a segregationist. I do not believe that white people and black people were made to live under the same roof.

    Like

  34. millertheanunnaki January 19, 2016 at 11:29 PM #

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch January 19, 2016 at 5:10 AM #
    “Incidentally, Barbados was never really a “colony” of Britain”

    So what was it then? A protectorate?

    It might not have been a grant-in-aid Crown Colony but all important decisions had to be approved by the resident Colonial Secretary, ratified by the Governor and assented to in Whitehall.

    If Barbados was really never a “colony” then the whole charade about Barrow fighting for Independence against the opposing forces of the BLP under GAIA and Cummins is just a whole set or propagandistic hot air designed to fool the ignorant masses just like the current push for republicanism to usher in an age of dictatorial rule.

    “Carry on, England. Barbados is behind you!” In a telegram dated 6 August 1914.
    “Barbados is with you.” First telegram received in Whitehall on 3 September 1939.

    It’s going to cost a lot of money to remove the crowns from the pips and epaulettes of the officers in those law enforcement and defence agencies.
    All those old colonial uniforms of the Barbados regiment are destined for the Museum, not on parade.

    Like

  35. balance January 20, 2016 at 4:26 AM #

    “millertheanunnaki January 19, 2016 at 11:29 PM #

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch January 19, 2016 at 5:10 AM #
    “Incidentally, Barbados was never really a “colony” of Britain”

    So what was it then? A protectorate?

    It might not have been a grant-in-aid Crown Colony but all important decisions had to be approved by the resident Colonial Secretary, ratified by the Governor and assented to in Whitehall.”

    What you say might be true but remember there is no evidence to indicate that our black ancestors were here when Barbados was discovered by an English trader in 1625 and settled in 162. The first black people are reported to have landed here in the early 1630’s by accident when a British ship with indentured servants bound for Barbados attacked a Potuguese ship with 8 slaves on board who were later sold in the city of Bridgetown. So Barbados was not colonized like for instance India where the British arrived and stamped their universal authority on an already thriving civilization.

    Like

  36. Well Well & Consequences January 20, 2016 at 6:55 AM #

    Miller said:

    “It’s going to cost a lot of money to remove the crowns from the pips and epaulettes of the officers in those law enforcement and defence agencies.”

    If you think that financial cost will be bad, imagine the mental and psychological costs of removing all that centuries to decades old british shit from inside all their heads, they are still struggling with the side effects of mental slavery, it’s one incapacitating after another.

    The good news is, when it’s finally done, it will be done, no matter how many more decades it takes.

    Like

  37. Vincent Haynes January 20, 2016 at 8:36 AM #

    Well Well & Consequences January 20, 2016 at 6:55 AM #

    ……..removing all that centuries to decades old british shit from inside all their heads, they are still struggling with the side effects of mental slavery, it’s one incapacitating after another.

    Chuckle………go to the head of the class……you have just given a solution to what ails the Caribbean……..so corruption,killings,mismanagement,greed,racism,etc,etc all of that will be no more and instead we will all live in peace,love and harmony with each other in a land of bliss……wow

    Like

  38. Well Well & Consequences January 20, 2016 at 6:59 PM #

    Vincent…..by now you should know me better than that.

    No….with all the british shit still programmed in their heads for generation after generation finally gone, they should be able to think quite clearly, much clearer than they do now for sure. All the behaviors you mentioned are here to stay, those behaviors is man being their most evil self..

    Like

  39. Vincent Haynes January 20, 2016 at 7:04 PM #

    Well Well & Consequences January 20, 2016 at 6:59 PM #

    Chuckle…… you are one confused and tormented soul…..forever twisting and turning in your comments……wuhloss…..I sincerely hope you discover peace of mind soon….I bid you a good night.

    Like

  40. Well Well & Consequences January 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM #

    Vincent…sleep welll, dream of a “free black nation” it will do you good.

    Like

  41. Hopi January 26, 2016 at 11:12 PM #

    While pretending to relinquish your status as ‘Wards of the Monarch’ Please don’t forget to give back the Anglican Church as well for it was brought to you compliments of the Monarch.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

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

%d bloggers like this: