Why Ted Cruz Is and Isn’t a Natural Born Citizen

The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen of any of the States that adopted the Constitution and joined in the Union of the united STATES of  AMERICA. But the framers did not define what that common language designation specifically meant. Although it clearly meant that one had to be born as a natural citizen, it did not spell-out what a natural citizen is not, and therein is found the reason that it is still undefined in this present-day ignorant era.

In seeking to understand what a natural citizen is, one faces three competing claims as to how it is defined. Two of them immediately go off the rails by the grounding of their doctrine on the false assumption that those words are already defined, defined by a definer or definers who never existed and could never exist for lack of any authority by legal appointment in the United States or elsewhere, along with the lack of anyone appointing himself as the great definer of a term and concept that did not even exist in the political universe preceding the American Revolution.

One side blindly argues that if you were either born of American parents or were born on American soil, then you qualify for the term “natural-born citizen”.

Their die-hard opponents who argue that a certain President named Obama is constitutionally ineligible for office argue that being one or the other is insufficient, and instead one must be both. I call that unique, patriotic, sentimental viewpoint, found no where else in space or time, the neo-Nativist dogma.

It makes one a 1,000% American citizen, -by nature and by common law, by blood lineage and national borders, by American father & mother and American soil. A super-solely-all-American Citizen.

The defenders of Obama argue that merely being born on US soil is sufficient, or being born of a single American parent will do just as well.  Both sides know that both views cannot be correct, so the other is definitely wrong, while failing to even conceive that they both might be wrong!

Those two choices are like the wrong Goldilocks choices. The one that is “just right” is the one that relies solely on the only basis of defining that which is natural, and that is Natural Law. By nature, all off-spring are the same as their parents, -unless their parents were of different origins, like a horse and a donkey, which produce a sterile mule, an unnatural hybrid creature. Or a donkey and a zebra, producing a Zedonk.

By the principle of natural replication, along with the principle of natural membership, if one is born of parents of the same origin, then they are identical to their parents, and are natural members of their groups, both species group, social group, and in the human realm, their political (national) group. So, a person born as a natural citizen is one born of citizen parents (plural).

For about half of American history, only the father was of significance since his foreign bride became an American citizen by marrying an American husband. So the social reality was that with the father being the head of the family, his children took after him and inherited his nationality -or more…if he was an alien. In that case, by natural law, they would inherit his foreign nationality along with State-granted common-law State citizenship allowed for the native-born of immigrants.

Those facts led eventually to two major clashes. One was between the States and the Federal Government, while the other was between male citizens and the female population. The first one was about the very nature of citizenship while the second was about the tradition of gender inequality.

The States had continued the centuries-old common law tradition that deemed the native-born to be members of the nation, -as previously it had made the children of immigrants “natural-born subjects” of His Royal Majesty.

After the Revolution, as Freemen, they were no one’s subject, but they were still benefactors of hundreds of years of settled British law and common law, which they then were responsible to incorporate piece-by-piece, as needed or desired, into their new State Constitutions or statutes.

One of those pieces was allowing native-born children of immigrants to be “citizens at birth”.   They were thus American citizens by law and foreign citizens by birth to foreign parents.

That was an unimportant fact to State government officials because they were not burdened with any responsibility for dealing with foreign governments, which the new central government was obligated to handle.  It had to have a single, natural, coherent policy for determining who was an indisputable citizen of the new nation.

That created a problem because Natural Law is fundamentally more primal and weighty than man-made temporal laws, which meant that children of foreigners were intrinsically more foreign than American due to their blood lineage and natural membership in their father’s foreign nation.

That was a huge head-scratcher which the new central government, Congress, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and later Department of State, rejected. They had but one view and attitude: you can only be a citizen of ONE nation, -with one history, one allegiance, one government, and one military obligation to defend it. No citizenship bigamy was allowed.

That simplified the matter to the maximum, -but… it contradicted the retained citizenship authority of the States. The Congress could not strip the States of the right to make citizens of their alien-fathered native-born sons since it was given no authority to outlaw native-birth citizenship, -but was empowered to ignore it in relationships with other nations.

The resulting conflict rarely came to the surface because it would require a most unusual circumstance for that to happen, but it did happen occasionally because more than one child was born within the U.S. to foreigners but was soon moved with its parents back to Europe where it was raised as a foreigner, -a foreigner who as an adult decided to officially become an American dual-citizen and ask for official papers or a passport from the U.S. Embassy or consulate. Then the State Dept. had to figure out if such a person was really an American or simply a foreigner.

That conundrum could never occur within the United States because if a State recognized a person as its citizen by right of descent, or in conformity with the national rule of naturalization, then that person possessed citizenship that had to be recognized by all of the other States of the Union. Because of that reciprocity, there was never any issue as to the origin of one’s citizenship. It didn’t matter. But… what did matter was the issue of who was eligible to be President.

Were those born of aliens also eligible as were the children of citizens? What would qualify them to be called “natural citizens” when they were natural citizens of their father’s nation? The answer, of course, is “nothing”.

Besides that conundrum was the issue of: “head of the family” and American women having their own citizenship apart from their foreign husband. As women gained civic and civil rights that they did not possess when the nation was founded, their children eventually did as well.

Earlier, a woman lost her citizenship if she married a foreigner, taking his nationality in place of her own (the Naturalization Act of 1907 codified that custom and treaty policy). That kept the unity of the family as one single nationality unit. That ended when women could keep their native nationality and produce children having both her and her foreign husband’s nationality, -dual citizens.

The national government had to bow to that new order of things because women were given the right of suffrage by a constitutional amendment which implied that they had a right to equal 14th Amendment treatment. Goodbye single nationality. Hello dual citizenship and mothers sharing their nationality with their children when the father was foreign.

That is the world in which we now live, and it impacts the sociological meaning of what a natural citizen is. Now, in the broadest terms, it still means the same thing as before if conditions match those of the era in which the Constitution was written and ratified. The condition or factor that is at the heart of the issue that no one talks about anymore, namely: headship.

All the members of a body are subordinate to the head. That was always (almost) the father. But rarely, he might have died before his child was born, and he might have been a foreigner. In such a case, the mother became the head and in that situation it was her nationality that was passed to her child. And that brings us to Ted Cruz and a technical alternative to the death of the father: national disenfranchisement.

It can result from a couple of different things, like a man’s renunciation of his foreign citizenship, his actions of becoming a member of another nation and perhaps even serving in its military, and his political status vis a vis that foreign government.

Also, treasonous behavior could justly and rightly be deemed to be evidence of  self-expatriation and denunciation of one’s allegiance and citizenship. In such a case, as with Anwar al-Awlaki, the guardians of the nation have a moral right to view him as no longer an American citizen but as the enemy that he has become. Such a one forfeits their membership in their nation when they commit treason against it repeatedly and are unwilling to submit to capture and trial.

That touches on the relationship that the Cuban father of Ted Cruz had with the government of his former homeland. Here’s the important postulation: his father was no longer a Cuban citizen when Ted was born so natural law could not apply to establish a nationality connection between his Canada-born child and the government of Fidel Castro.

In that scenario, his father was no longer the nationality head-of-the-family since he was in effect “a stateless person”. Thus the citizenship of the mother would have been primary, -and singularly active. That would mean that Ted was born as the natural citizen child of only the American nationality (with no Cuban government connection).

His American mother and Cuban father moved to Canada for eight years, and his father became a naturalized citizen of Canada, but two important pieces of information are missing: did his mother also become a naturalized Canadian and when exactly did one or both of them naturalize?  Before Ted was born or after?

Lacking those answers, let’s focus on the issue of what makes one a citizen at all. When it is all boiled down to the most elementary legally recognized factor, an answer is seen in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment of 1866 (unconstitutionally “ratified” in 1868).

The civil rights act, written to provide citizenship for freed slaves, states that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens, while the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”

Applying that wording to Rafael Cruz Sr., one realizes that they do not apply at all. He was NOT subject to the foreign power of communist Cuba when his son was born in 1970 but he was subject to American authority completely until he moved to Canada where his son was born.

So by American definitions of what citizenship entails, it could not be said that he was still a citizen of Fidel Castro’s Cuba since in fact he had become stateless due to the dictatorship that Castro imposed while he was studying in the United States.

He could not go home to the new repression and totalitarianism, which was as bad as that which he had fought against (the Batista regime) and fled. He was in effect truly a refugee, émigré, and asylum seeker who was eventually granted a permanent resident Green Card because no one was being deported back to communist Cuba by the US government.

Let’s look at his father’s biographical facts (of which there are few):

from Wikipedia

Cruz’s father, who was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba,[19][20] as Robert T. Garrett of the Dallas Morning News has described, “suffered beatings and imprisonment for protesting the oppressive regime”[19][24] of dictator Fulgencio Batista. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution[25][26] when he was 14 years old, but “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.”[27]

A few years later he became a staunch critic of Castro when “the rebel leader took control and began seizing private property [and businesses, and resources] and suppressing dissent.”[19][28]

The elder Cruz fled Cuba in 1957, two years before the revolution, at the age of 18, landing in Austin,[24]a Cuban émigré, to study at the University of Texas, knowing no English and with $100 sewn into his underwear.[29][30]

His younger sister fought in the counter-revolution and was tortured by the new regime.[26] He remained regretful for his early support of Castro, and emphatically conveyed this remorse to his young son over the following years.[19][26]

The elder Cruz worked his way through college as a dishwasher, making 50 cents an hour,[18] earning a degree in mathematics.[24] Cruz’s father is a pastor in Carrollton, Texas,[17] a Dallas suburb, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005.[20]

An émigré is a person who has “migrated out”, often with a connotation of political or social self-exile. The word is the past participle of the French émigrer ‘to emigrate’.

Whereas emigrants have likely chosen to leave one place and become immigrants in a different clime, not usually expecting to return, émigrés see exile as a temporary expedient forced on them by political circumstances. Émigré circles often arouse suspicion as breeding-grounds for plots and counter-revolution. [they don’t assimilate]

European aristocrats were forced to leave their native countries due to political upheavals from the beginning of the 20th century to the end of World War II. Also see: exiles

Unlike émigré, the term exile remains politically neutral and includes people from whatever side of the political spectrum who had to leave their homeland, often for political reasons, and who wish to return

A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion; because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons; or because they are fleeing a war. Such a person may be called an “asylum seeker” until recognized by the state where they make a claim.[1]

 Rafael Cruz was an escapee (via bribery) of the Batista regime which had imprisoned and beaten him, making him rightful a petitioner for political asylum, which he obtained. If there is one thing that one can say about such people, it is that they definitely do not hold any allegiance toward, nor have subjection to the dictatorship which they escaped, or in his case, avoided.

In Rafael’s case, there is more: the government that he had lived under, and of which he had been a citizen, came to a total end and ceased to exist! He was no longer a citizen of Batista Cuba, and he never returned and thus never became a citizen of Castro Cuba. He truly was a stateless person and had no citizenship to pass on to his child.

That means that his son only inherited his mother’s nationality, making him a natural citizen by birth due to her nationality alone. No dual citizenship. No divided allegiance. All American,… because politically speaking, that was all that he inherited.

It was like his father was politically impotent. Unable to produce a political child. As if his mother’s nationality resulted in a political virgin birth.

It is hard to argue that that violates the principle of Natural Law since it follows exactly the logic of natural law in the political realm. So politically speaking, no one can assert that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, -only that he is not a normal natural born citizen. But compared to Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama, who was not born as a U.S. citizen (due to not being fathered by an immigrant who was fully subject to American authority), and who was instead subject to the British Crown and was a British citizen by the British Nationality Act of 1948, he is heads & shoulders above him when it comes to being constitutionally qualified to be President.

One other point is that U.S. naturalization law speaks to the situation of a single American mother giving birth to a foreign father’s child in a foreign land. The context of that section of the statutes from the past to the present has always been viewed as that of the power of Congress to make new citizens, but a very important truth about the naturalization statutes has been overlooked for a very, very long time, and that is the nature of the origin of the citizenship that is mentioned.  Is its nature legal citizenship or natural citizenship?

Instead of addressing a situation like that of Cruz first off, let’s look as what we can know for certain. The first naturalization act of Congress was “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization” passed in 1790 by the first constitutional Congress ever.  In it is mentioned the children born abroad of American parents, and they are singled out as being natural born citizens, -not simply citizens like the children of naturalized foreigners.

It was written that they were to “be considered as natural born citizens”, -but considered by whom?  No State or federal port officer would care if they were natural born citizens, only that they were simply citizens and not foreigners.  So, without such officers not even being possibly the target of that language, it had to have had another target, and that target is easily understood to be related to the words themselves, words that related to one thing and one thing only: the presidency.

The target therefore had to be election officials who had the authority to disallow candidates from being included on election ballots, with the presidential election being the election of interest, and the foreign born Americans being declared to all state election officials to be not just undefined citizens, nor naturalized citizens, nor foreigners, but citizens eligible to be President.

That raises two points.  You can’t make a natural born citizen out of a foreigner, and Congress had no authority to make citizens at all, -only to write a uniform rule for the states to adopt in their naturalization statutes.  Only the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance could turn a foreigner into an American, and only a foreigner could speak that oath and be so transformed.  Congress, unlike Parliament, had no authority to declare anyone to be an American citizen.

To understand the limited authority that Congress was given, one must get down to brass tacks. A uniform rule of naturalization had only one main context: a foreign immigrant becoming an American in America.  Its secondary context was an American being born in a foreign land, but what many fail to comprehend is the fact that the mention of them was not at all connected to the authority to determine which immigrants would be allowed to become Americans.  It was only included in that act because there was no better place to include it and also to continue in American law the principle of the legal prohibition of British law against recognizing as British a child born aboard of a British subject who had also been born abroad and had never lived in Britain.

They needed to state that natural citizenship does not “descend” by natural right to children who are naturally members of a foreign nation by foreign birth & upbringing by a father who similarly was foreign born and raised.  THAT was the primary reason to mention American children in the naturalization act, with the secondary reason being to protect their eligibility to be President.

Neither reason had a thing to do with the congressional authority regarding making an alien into an American via the naturalization oath.

The lesson we can extract from all that is that American citizenship as recognized by the federal government was, as mentioned in the act, by Right of descent, -not by place of birth.

That understanding is then reinforced by what is said of the children of an immigrant who becomes an American by satisfying the requirements and taking the oath.  It said that they, like their father, “shall be considered as citizens of the United States”.  But based on what?  That is what one needs to understand.  The very same principle applied to ALL children regardless of nationality.

They were ineluctably the very same as their head, their source, their origin, which was he who gave them life and owned them; their father.  If he was an American then so were they.  They could not be subject to a foreign power if he was not subject to it because as minors they were subject to only him.

That is the principle that America follows in regard to children of naturalized foreigners, but it is not the principle that America follows in regard to Americans who decide to become a foreigner and renounce their American citizenship and adopt a foreign nationality, along with their children.

America does not recognize their renunciation of the parents’ citizenship as serving to nullify the citizenship of their American children.  The principle of ascribing citizenship based solely on the father’s, or in this day and age, the parents’ nationality is not adhered to by America, and for a damn good reason.

It is because of the principle of equality.  All citizens are equal and all citizenship is equal as well.  That means that no one can change your American citizenship except you because you, even as a minor, have a fundamental right to it.  You own it.  It is yours!  -not the government’s to do with as it chooses.

That is because of two things: in America the citizens are the Sovereigns over the government, and because America embraces a bedrock fiction of law, which is the fiction of “natural-ization”.

American naturalization transforms foreigners not into “naturalized citizens” but into natural citizens!  They are no longer foreigners.  That fact is also a fiction of law because in fact they may still be 90% or so foreign.  But our fiction does not stop there but instead embraces the full import of the philosophy of Equality.

All citizens can only truly be equal if they are all natural citizens, alike, as if born of citizens, with equal rights in all regards, almost.  Unlike other nations, America allows former foreigners to serve in every office except two: the offices of President and Vice-President.
But the constitutional restriction is even more stringent than that, because by the principle of natural membership, the children of foreigners are not natural Americans or natural citizens even if they are allowed to be considered citizens from birth.  That means that being merely a native-born citizen is not equivalent to being a natural born citizen because one is citizen-born while the other is alien-born.

With that background understanding, we can examine the naturalization law in regard to a single American parent.  That is not a common situation percentage-wise although it is not uncommon numbers-wise. But there is an even more uncommon situation and that is when there is only one parent and he or she is American.  That is possible when the father is unknown, has died before his child’s birth, or the mother is killed and then the baby is removed from her.

So, with only one parent at birth, we find ourselves in the Twilight Zone of nationality determination; where natural law and human law are both present and creating a fog of confusion.  So let’s try to clear the fog.

We need to determine what is controlled by human law and what is controlled by natural law, and do they both determine the same outcome?  But it is more complicated than even that because of the existence of the office of President and the need to bar all who are not natural citizens by birth, meaning by Right of Descent, or blood lineage.

So we come to two questions: “Can one be both a natural born citizen and a statutory naturalized citizen?”, and “Does the authority of the wording of naturalization law regarding a foreign-born child of a single American parent reside in the uniform rule-writing authority given to Congress or in the Right of descent which is beyond the authority of Congress?

Those are a couple of very tough questions.  But the only examples that we can base an opinion on point to viewing the nationality of the head of the family as being the natural nationality of the child (unless that parent has never had any physical connection to the country of his or her nationality).

Of course in this modern world of women’s equality, the concept of the head of the family is quaint in comparison to when it was fundamental, immutable, and unquestionable.  But it is that world that we must remain cognizant of in order to understand the principles involved.

So in review, first; a foreign-born child of Americans is an American by Right of descent, and “Right” does not mean “government-granted privilege” but means a right that is beyond all legal authority of government.  That means it is a right not just for the “few” foreign-born children but for all children of all Americans, both in and outside of American borders.

Second; by that same principle of nationality by blood relationship, the children of a naturalized father immediately became American citizens because they reflected the status and political character of their father, the head of the family that they were integrally attached to.

Now, to connect that reality to a single American parent with no foreign spouse in the mix, we might want to look at a natural analogy.  If a wild but socially inter-related animal gives birth, and the father has died before the birth, does than change the nature of the off-spring, like its species?

Say the animal is an elephant.  The baby will also be an elephant and it will naturally be a member (citizen) of its mother’s herd (country).  But elephant herds contain no male adults, so a lion pride would be a better analogy for the situation of the mother dying before birth.  If the cub was somehow rescued and raised by an aunt or grandmother, it would naturally be a lion like the father and a member of his pride.

But if the father was a tiger instead of a lion, the cub would be a tigon hybrid. That would be analogous to having a living foreign father, but we are only interested in a dead, unknown, of politically nation-less father.  In such rare cases, the father is invisible and immaterial, and thus irrelevant as far as nationality is concerned.

How does that situation relate to the nature of the naturalization law?  Well, it was not written for such a situation and did not contemplate it at all, at least not until our modern era in which the lawyers have covered everything under the sun, one could assume.

Even if there was an inclusion of such a situation in the Naturalization Act in effect when Senator Cruz was born, no authority on earth exists to say definitively whether or not its statement was an exercise of congressional authority or merely a defense of a natural right, like was included for natural born citizens in the 1790 act.

It can be said that the head of the family is the source of the nationality of the children, and it can be said that a foreign-born child of an American parent and a foreign parent is not naturally an American nor a member of the other parent’s nation because the child is an unnatural political hybrid that needs the permission of law that a natural citizen does not need.

The child is born with foreign alienage which eliminates the “right” of descent because either both parents must together pass that right to their American child, or a single parent alone must do so.  But when the child’s origin is bifurcated, split, dual, non-uniform, then there is no natural right of descent because there is no natural anything. The child is a political chimera, a Siamese twin, a political hybrid cross-breed “owing” allegiance to two nations, two governments, two systems of law, and two peoples.  That is not natural.

But if one of the parents is no longer in the picture, then that changes the equation.  The father of Ted Cruz either was or was not politically in the picture when Ted was born.  If he was not yet a Canadian naturalized citizen, then we was not a citizen of any nation even though the Cuban Constitution recognized native-born Cubans as citizen, that relationship was one-sided because the government and its Constitution did not pre-date the exile of Rafael Cruz but appeared after it, and consequently he was not a party to its creation and thus was not subject to its authority or its rules of citizenship.

The Cuban government did not want him and he did not want them.  They were at enmity.  They not only were not “divorced” but they were never even really “married”.  Hell, they never even dated!

So… when his son was born, if he was not a Canadian yet, then he imparted no foreign alienage to his child because he was effectively a stateless person.

Of course that is all nothing more than philosophical conceptualizing.  Baby Ted was not “tainted” with any Canadian “alienage” because he was not raised in Canada as a Canadian, and his parents did not even know about the Canadian gift of citizenship for all native-born children until he was already elected to the United States Senate.  So it would be a daunting challenge to find even an atom of foreignness in him.

So with all of that philosophical fog in the air, there is no grounds to argue that his candidacy for the presidency would be “a national security risk” of some inexplicable nature nor a threat to the Constitution because its simplicity could not take into account such a rarity as the circumstances of the birth and citizenship of Ted Cruz.

The matter could be left there as being viewable legitimately in his favor, but life isn’t so simple because the common misconception in America is that birth place determines eligibility to be Commander-in-Chief, not the American blood of your parents and ancestors.  So… to dispel that delusion, there are over a hundred expositions that I’ve penned than can be employed. From A to Z.

by Adrien Nash March 2015 obama–nation.com

 Part II ~The Lifeboat Analogy~ coming sometime or other…

This exposition for printing and sharing:
The Ted Cruz Citizenship-Eligibility Mystery
PDF 7 pages


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

6 Responses to Why Ted Cruz Is and Isn’t a Natural Born Citizen

  1. davidfarrar says:

    Isn’t it an established fact that Ted Cruz’s father was, in fact, a Canadian citizen at the time of Ted birth? I could be wrong, but I thought I read that somewhere. But even if he wasn’t. Ted’s father, was a natural born Cuban at birth, which one doesn’t simply lose.

    “I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.”

    The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 — 48 years after leaving Cuba. Why did he take so long to do it?

    Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration

    • arnash says:

      Where did you find the quote that you included about Rafael becoming a Canadian citizen? I looked a lot and couldn’t find any stock information that even mentioned anything about his time in Canada.
      If he was a Canadian citizen when Ted was born, then he would not have been born as a natural born citizen because his father would not have been a stateless person with no allegiance to any government.

      As for his long wait to become an American, I wonder if it had anything to do with his ministry causing him to not have any desire to be involved in American political life.

  2. davidfarrar says:

    There is another possibility that Rafael Bienvenido Cruz and Ted’s mother were never actually married before Ted’s birth

  3. arnash says:

    I found nothing related to Cruz on that page. But the NPR interview states the father sought and received asylum and that could put him in the stateless person category. Now the question is in regard to whether or not he was a Canadian citizen when their son was born. He was born is seems after four of the eight years spent in Canada. It was probably around that period that he naturalized into Canadian citizenship. So without knowing that technical detail, it is impossible to say that Cruz is not a natural born citizen of a very rare sort.

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

%d bloggers like this: