Skip to content

February 8, 2012

59

Rick Santorum Wants to Fight Libertarian Influence in the Republican Party

by rogueoperator

Can’t say I’m real surprised about this, but to hear Rick Santorum talk about libertarians, and particularly those in the tea party, with such disdain is a bit of an eye-opener.

See also: Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters

About these ads
59 Comments Post a comment
  1. Feb 8 2012

    This is why I have trouble with Santorum. He wants a huge government to enact social engineering from the right, which I think is just as bad as engineering from the left. The only thing that makes me comfortable with Santorum is that I know exactly where he stands on the issues. I disagree with him that the biggest problem we have is homosexuality, and the lack of Christian secret police, but at least I know where he stands.

    Why is it that 3 of the 4 GOP candidates believe in massive government as long as it governs from the right? And I keep hearing the selling point that “Newt/Flipper can fix the Leviathan!”. Why do we want to fix it? Shouldn’t we want to destroy the Leviathan and replace it with a reasonably sized government? Will anyone want to be rid of it if we “fix” it?

    Reply
    • nilvehsd
      Feb 9 2012

      I know. I have favored Rick and I have leaned hard towards Paul but as mentioned, I too will vote for whomever vs. BO. Rick is a bit hardcore conservative which is why I voted for Newt in Fla. primaries. I thought Rick would be too much for too many to beat BO, then I thought Romney was too weak against Newt, so I penciled in Newt for a vote. Crazy! But this is what I meant when I said no one knows how to vote. After voting and calming down I decided Romney could win most votes because he is not too conservative. After all he is a Republican governor of a liberal state. This is why we all must stand together when a nominee is finally picked. None of them work completely, but we need to start somewhere and we need to get rid of BO. I do see more fear in the liberal sites regarding Rick vs. Romney. I’m sure if Paul were to take a lead the same would be true. So maybe Rick is the one. I am also seeing so many right sites who will not vote for Romney and siting the soros comment about how Romney = Obama. I think if I see this ‘Romney = Obama’ logo one more time I will scream. Since when do they listen to soros? Since when is his speech anything other then a lie or manipulation.?? It is hard to weigh it all on who will be best to beat the present beast. Very tough call. Strength in numbers is all I can come up with! Dawn :)

      Reply
      • Feb 9 2012

        Agree with you on the Romney = Obama comment from Soros. It is best to disregard it and think for oneself.

        I think Romney will get the nom, and conservatives should push as hard as they can to let the establishment know they are unhappy with squish Romney. I still think Romney is the most “electable” candidate, all conservative outrage aside.

      • duramaterof2
        Feb 10 2012

        “Strength in numbers”, yet you pencil in Newt? If all the people who have had their eyes opened and understand what Ron Paul will do to restore order and liberty to these United States would just put their vote where their mouth is, we would see him take the nomination and the Presidency. He can beat Obama because Obama has nothing on him. NOTHING. I wouldn’t be surprised if some democrat campaign cash is being put into the candidates Obama could easily defeat. Think about it and vote accordingly.

      • nilvehsd
        Feb 10 2012

        duramaterof2 – Yea, strength in numbers. Unfortunately Paul does not have that. If he did I would have penciled in his name 2 weeks ago. No sense voting for the under dog. Just gives the blue team more of a lead. How’s your math skills?

      • JVT
        Feb 14 2012

        It’s better to stand on principal. Lesser of two evils is still evil. I’ll stick with Ron Paul. The rest is just two sides of the same coin.

      • Angela
        Feb 14 2012

        …No sense voting for the underdog? Do you even know Presidential history? And what about voting with the candidate that best reflects what you believe? If you don’t feel like you can do that, then what is the point of even giving the freedom to vote? We’re a democracy with good reason. Don’t let your fear belittle what others have physically died to give you.

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 15 2012

        Angela – What does knowing presidential history have to do with voting in the primaries for this 2012 presidential election? In case you have not noticed we are NOT in normal times. In normal times you vote for your best reflection of beliefs. I am voting to remove Obama. The point of freedom in voting is just that, freedom to vote for who you want and for whatever reason you want. BTW, we are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. Don’t get yourself all twisted up. I will vote for whomever wins the nomination regardless of my beliefs, because I want Obama gone. That is what I did in the FL primaries and I was sharing it only to point out how no one knows how to vote because first and foremost I believe most people want to vote in a guy who can beat BO. When my fellow Americans decide the nominee I shall happily and eagerly stand behind them. Hopefully you will do the same.

    • Feb 10 2012

      If you really look into where Santorum stands on issues,as President we would be looking at a dictator. Just his religious beliefs etc.There was a court case in Dover Penn. about Evolution vs intelligent design, Santorum basically backed and got the Judge appointed who presided over the case >this judge also believed in intelligent design .My point is he would push his beliefs on the American people while in office.The other issue is he would have us fighting wars all over the globe because of his beliefs .Out of all the candidates he’s the worse one we could chose . As far as regaing any freedoms we have lost he would take away more . JUst liten to him in the debates ,and his speeches , and his media interviews . He’s a warmonger Like the Bush admin. but for diff. reasons . Rick Santorum is worse than same old same old ,He’s a fanatic and would like nothing better than to Shove his beliefs down our throats ,Plus be pearing into our private lives and trying to Judge us by his beliefs and morals . Bad news this man. Just look into the Dover case , and you will see what this guy is really about ..

      Reply
      • nilvehsd
        Feb 10 2012

        Eli – You are describing Obama not Santorum.

      • Joey
        Feb 10 2012

        You are dead on target. Obama believes in freedom as much as Santorum, aka The Condom Nazi. Both are bad for the freedom lovers among us.

  2. Feb 9 2012

    Libertarian Party actually supports the Civil Rights Act and wants to Include Gay Marriage with it. One of the reasons why Ron Paul left them. Bashing the Tea Party is popular among NeoCons like himself. What Rick doesn’t like is for people in the Tea Party, Like Rand Paul, or Mike Lee to point out that the CRA is not conducive to the Constitution. So this attack actually makes Rick more in line with Libertarians and not Tea Partiers.

    Reply
    • Feb 9 2012

      That’s a good comment, but he seemed to be talking about libertarian ideology, as it is popularly called, and not the party, which jumped the shark a long time ago.

      Reply
      • Don
        Feb 9 2012

        ???? Huh… You make no sense. Look, libertarians support The Civil Rights Act as much as Santorum does. Are you with me so far? Tea party does not support the Civil Rights Act. Santorum is a moron to make the tea party out to be Libertarianism. He’s a nut job. I am not a libertarian, I side with The tea party instead and want the civil rights act thrown out, which is outside the libertarian ideology. I can’t make it any simpler for any if you. Please refrain from calling the Tea Party a libertarian ideology like the moron Santorum does.

      • Feb 9 2012

        What are you talking about? Rand Paul is a libertarian, and so am I. Neither of us support the Civil Rights Act. I don’t think you know what the word libertarian means.

        Libertarian may refer to:

        – A member of Libertarian Party (United States) or other libertarian political party;
        – A member or supporter of a libertarian organization;
        – A proponent of libertarianism, a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action;
        – Libertarianism (metaphysics), one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism;

        I am using it in the third sense, and so is the moron Santorum, as you so felicitously put it.

  3. Feb 9 2012

    Aren’t “earmarks” just a fancy way of saying “entitlements”, the politician needs to keep that job, so he IS entitled to the money for his district. jmo

    Reply
    • Feb 9 2012

      It depends on the earmarks and if they are constitutional or not. Madison seemed to think the majority weren’t legitimate functions of government.

      Reply
  4. Rachel
    Feb 9 2012

    Santorum is NOT good. Not good at all. He is representing the Republican party? The Tea Party??? I am appalled!!!

    Reply
  5. angelos
    Feb 9 2012

    The country was founded by Libertarians!

    Why do people treat it like a dirty word?

    Hell George Washington WARNED AGAINST political parties like Republican and Democrat.

    I wonder why?

    Maybe because America’s best interests would be forced to take a back seat to party loyalties and power cells?

    Really we have one “Big Government” Party with two divisions.

    The Liberal “Welfare” division and the Conservative “Warfare” division.
    Both have brought America to the brink of disaster.

    We need to live by our Founding Principles or we will perish as a free and prosperous nation.

    We ARE PERISHING!

    Reply
    • nilvehsd
      Feb 9 2012

      Very good point on how both parties have caused disaster. Another reason why no one knows what to vote for. Which one is the lesser of the two evil’s seems to be all we ever have to chose from. We are perishing under this current regime, but we don’t have to be, and that is why it is such an important election.

      Reply
  6. David
    Feb 10 2012

    Santorum is either ignorant or a liar when he says that libertarians don’t believe in government. Although I am a libertarian voluntaryist (http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html), most libertarians do believe (unfortunately) in small, limited government. Santorum, like all but one Republican, is clueless about the Constitution. I refer to both major major political parties as Fascist Party A and Fascist Party B.

    Reply
    • Feb 14 2012

      You’re absolutely right. He has no idea what the difference is between a libertarian and an anarchist, which he claims to be one and the same. He has absolute no knowledge of the varying degrees of voluntarism and anarchism. This concept is beyond his comprehension.

      Reply
  7. Andreas Petofi
    Feb 10 2012

    Only an idiot would vote Republican. I’m not voting for Obama, but he is the lesser of two evils compared to any Republican.

    Reply
    • Feb 10 2012

      That is very rational thinking. As long as the guy has an R, you won’t consider him. Even though Republicans are internally divided, and the Democrats are lock-step. Well, enjoy fascism!

      Reply
    • nilvehsd
      Feb 10 2012

      That comment makes you an idiot.

      Reply
      • nilvehsd
        Feb 10 2012

        I was speaking to Andreas. Forget enjoying fascism, how about marxism with a twist of sharia law? That in your view is the lesser of two evils? You’ve got your head in the sand dude.

      • Feb 10 2012

        Just to clarify, the Democrats are the fascists. The Republicans are fascist enablers. Socialism is just a smokescreen, but we can still talk about it as a “fantastical” ideology.

  8. Feb 10 2012

    Libertarian influence is the only thing making the GOP worthy of any consideration at all.

    The religious nut/bigotry wing of the GOP has been fading fast and losing votes for years. It should completely go away and take Rick Scrotorum with it.

    Reply
  9. Feb 10 2012

    Rick’s not rational. He’s confusing limited government with anarchy. But, then again, he might be doing that on purpose, to paint the libertarian movement black to make himself look noble. He’s corrupt. He supported far more than just earmarks, including Planned Parenthood. He was voted the most corrupt politician while he was in Congress. I will never trust a single word this snake says.

    Reply
  10. Feb 10 2012

    I guess no one really gets what Ron Pauls message is about , Its about liberty not political parties .No matter how you look at it the people of this country need to wake up unite .Take this country back period . And if it takes a Revolution in any sense of the word , violent or peacefull .Doesn’t matter because its coming. What Ron Paul is saying is simple , its going to be on or backs no matter what, in any case. Look at the bailouts the shredding of our Constitution Etc. The Wars .In my opinion if we had to slim down Gov. or basically just ignore them and start over ,would be breath of fresh air. Another point , if we don’t live in this country free Then what the hell does the rest matter .its on our backs we fight the wars , we bail out the greed . and yes we elect idiots to rule over us. but like i said its not about politics anymore people . But i at least want someone at the controls, that cares about freedom .The ship sinking people and we better start hanging out with the people who know how to build life boats , or learn real fast , how to build them our selves . Because all the Politicans and big wig Corp. greed have theirs and their ready to lauch . Guess what we don’t have a seat in that boat ..

    Reply
    • nilvehsd
      Feb 10 2012

      Eli – Paul has an excellent FISCAL message. Excellent. Then he talks about letting Iran get a nuke, and closing the blinds unless we are hit or while Israel or some other ally is getting their throat slit. That’s when he loses me and many others. If he could just run the all the fiscal dept.s in government it would be a landslide for Paul. Reality is reality and the reality is there are bad people out there that want to kill you for no other reason then Allah told them to. So we must always remain strong defense wise as a nation. That is how Reagan brought us back in the 80’s.

      Reply
      • MomtoJS
        Feb 10 2012

        If you think he has an excellent Fiscal message then why can’t you trust his foreign policy. He is as intellengent as they come. Even Regan endorsed RP and praised him on his strong Foreign Policy. He does not want Iran to have a nuke, but he use’s logic not hysterical hype, They know what would happen to them if they even thought about using a nuke. We have plenty of intelliengence if used and believed to tell us if they are going to use a nuke. before 9/11 we were told that something was going to happen but it was never taken seriousley. RP believes that Iran and other countries are sovreign just like us and we can’t go around the world and be dictators. He feels if there is enough evidence to support that a country is going to use a nuke on us then like the constitution say’s you go to the congress which is the people, not the UN, and decide if there is reason to go to war. This is how the founders set it up. We can’t just willy nilly go to war because the Un or President say’s so, the people have a right to be in on that decision after all we are the one’s sending our children in these wars to possibly be killed. Your statement on the only reason that someone may want to kill us is because Allah told them to is so ludicrous, I could say the same for the Christians who think we need to go to war in the Middle East because God wants’s Isreal protected for the end of times. Even though Isreal didn’t even exist until the 1940’s. It’s thinking like this that is going to bring this country down to its knees. These people have endured us and other countries meddling in their lands for many years for profit and gain. Wether it be for oil or regime change. Tell me if another country did that to us would we tolerate that? or would we fight them? That’s the reason plain and simple why they have attacked us. I don’t agree with it, but can understand it. We need to start having checks and balances before going to war, we went into iraq because they had weapons’s of mass distruction so we were told, but there were none. We had many young Americans killed for that, I don’t want to see that happen again do you? RP just want’s to do it the right way. He is willing to go to war, win it and come back home period.

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 10 2012

        MomtoJS – The U.S. is in many of the countries they are in because we went there to help. (Turn it around, do you think those other nations we HELP would come here to HELP us if we got invaded by an enemy?) Now we fund. That is also help and that is what should be the issue when the enemy has been removed. The funding of foreign nations is a problem because we need the money now. Going there to stop a bad situation is a good thing in my opinion. I don’t agree with you because I did some time in DHS and I have seen the evidence most Americans do not know about. Paul also knows this. You can not wait to go to war for the people to vote. That is crazy. Won’t work, unrealistic. We went to Iraq NOT because of weapons of mass. and there were none. We went to Iraq because Sadam had a sanction on his weapons programs that the UN said had to be inspected by the U.S. That’s because we are the leaders, the boss. If it is not us it will be some other nation. That’s OK with you? When Sadam refused to let the inspectors in time and time again we told him several times we would come in by force then. He still refused, so we went in by force. THAT IS WHY WE WENT TO IRAQ. When you get the history correct then you can make rational decisions. Paul needs to clarify his message because that is not what he says and if you have to have an interpreter with you to know what he means then this is why he is losing.

      • Gregory Gay
        Feb 10 2012

        Dawn, for every fanatic who hates the West for being Western, there are ten who support him because the West has killed their relatives with sanctions, drones, bombs, troops, etc. and parked foreign troops in their cities.

        Under an honestly peaceful relationship, those secondary supporters may start to distance themselves from the foaming-at-the-mouth types, and without that support the fanatics are little danger to anyone more than a few miles from their homes.

        Unless you believe they are ALL foam-at-the-mouth types, in which case you may need to explain why the entire population of the Middle East hasn’t taken up arms in a suicidal – but holy – charge against the nearest American base; it’s not like they would have to go very far, is it?

      • Feb 10 2012

        Foreign Policy is always the worst thing the U.S. does. Too many busy bodies who want to nation build and involve themselves in others business. The Republicans who side with Interventionism are nothing more then Wilsonian Progressives. Obama loves you guys, truly.

      • Feb 10 2012

        I don’t support interventionist foreign policy or nation-building.

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 10 2012

        Listen Gary – Your words are rhetoric. That really is not true and that is what the extremists of Islam tell you to validate their war on the west. The regular people of those nations know that those drones and bombs came BECAUSE of their government, not because we just felt like going there and bombing them. I have too much DHS & military knowledge to listen to your nonsense. Just thank God we have the defenses we have and the security we have because that is why you are safe so far. I agree the system has too much testosterone at times, but better too much then not enough. I will never agree with the non-involvement of the U.S. in foreign nations. Never. Can’t happen anyway. The globe would come tumbling down.

      • Feb 10 2012

        Edited your post for you, Dawn.

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 10 2012

        Thank you. Most kind! :)

    • Marcia Bacon
      Feb 11 2012

      Exactly right, anyone but Paul and we sink, freedom will be a thing of the past for sure. People need to quit being sheeple and doing what the biased media tell them to do. We need to stand together and vote for Ron Paul, even if we have to write in his name.

      Reply
      • Feb 14 2012

        Dawn, if you believe the US was only in these countries to help and not because we had something to gain, you are mistaken. If we only had the best intentions of the people of these countries in mind and didn’t have anything to gain from it, then why don’t we stop the suffering of the people in every country that has an oppressive regime? Why do we pick and choose the ones we go into and the ones we ignore? Look at the people in poor countries who have no resources we want. We’ll let them suffer till the end of times because we(our government) doesn’t care about them, they have NOTHING to offer us.

      • Feb 14 2012

        This raises a good argument that is better hashed out in person. But there is a realist calculus for deciding which countries to militarily intervene in, sanction, or give foreign aid to. Unfortunately, that calculus has less to do with justice and more to do with cynically pursuing our interests in an anarchic* world. As for Wilsonian idealists, they may actually try to establish justice abroad, but generally create more problems than they solve. TC, Kyle

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 14 2012

        Stephen – I think Kyle answered you perfectly for me. Glad I was late to arrive. Thanks Kyle, that is what I would have said. Of course there are other considerations to intervene, that is life. A negotiation. The point is you guys get mad if we go and you get mad if we do not. It is stated in this comment by you to me right here. You have to pick one side. Why they chose to go where they go is not for me to answer. The point is WE chose. See the object of the game is to BE the intervenor, otherwise you will be intervened on. Be happy you are on the better side of that coin. Do not be so naive as to hand that position over to a foreign nation. It will come back and bite you in the ass.

      • Feb 14 2012

        That is a good point, Dawn. Other countries and groups don’t cease to be a threat just because we withdraw from the world. From a libertarian point of view, a military is required to protect free trade and private property abroad. A good debate could be had about the war on terror, and if the fact that terrorist organizations exist that do plot international violence against American targets warrants intervention in the absence of host state cooperation.

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 14 2012

        Appreciate you pointing these things out Kyle. You are a very rational person. It is refreshing to blog with you! Basically my point is there will always be a bad guy and there will always be a good guy. Ying & Yang. It is what is and will always be. This euphoric mindset of world peace and everyone being friends is just crazy I’m sorry. Think about it, we can’t even stay married and we think all the world can get along. You have to fix what is broken, do not throw it all away. That’s my theory on most of it and because I spent some time as a TSO, I suppose I have a tendency to lean on the edge of your terror example in your comment when I say we need to intervene at times. I know all is not perfect, but the system we have is really very good, it has just been altered and the result is what we are seeing today. Chaos. Misunderstandings etc. Have a great day! :)

  11. RP2012!
    Feb 10 2012

    The message is the same from all the candidates, except Ron Paul. “Elect me and I’ll pull the strings of gov’t in your favour.” Wow. Who’s going to pull the strings of gov’t when the dollar collapses to nothingness and all the banks around the globe with stashes of U.S. Dollars in their vaults will burn them and choose their own money. That’s what Ron Paul wants to do for the American people, before our gov’t bungles the whole thing. Vote for your entitlements, vote with your moral conscience and when the dollar fails you won’t know what to do. The U.S. gov’t’s continual manipulation of the market in an attempt to prop up the world currency (USD) has led to over and under stimulation of the market, transfer of wealth to the upper class, destruction of the middle class and is handing over U.S. assets to other countries around the world. It’s not doomsday, but it is a fact that living beyond our means for so long will require us to live well below our means for even longer. Every day the market is not allowed to correct itself, because of gov’t and Fed intervention, adds to hole we’ll need to dig out of. Don’t get me started on the warmongering! What happens when the dollar fails and we can’t pay for our gigantic military and nation building operations? You think leaving them stranded without pay is supporting the troops? Your concerns for who should get the most votes b/c he or she has the best chance of influencing gov’t is complete nonsense. Ron Paul vows to put the power back where it belongs…in the people’s hands…not trusting in that is the same as not trusting in yourself. Are we all that lame that we don’t believe in ourselves anymore? If that’s the case, then what’s the point?

    Reply
    • Marcia Bacon
      Feb 11 2012

      Totally the truth, wish people could wake up and see that what you just said is exactly what’s going on, but I’m afraid we are all going to suffer the consequences of those who want everything free even though nothing is free, they are so foolish not to know what they are trading for this supposedly free stuff is liberty and freedom, there is only one choice for president -Ron Paul- the rest are socialists or fascist warmongers

      Reply
  12. Aireck
    Feb 10 2012

    “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” ~Ronald Reagan

    Reply
    • Feb 10 2012

      Great quote. Checking it out led me to this article:

      Inside Ronald Reagan (Reason magazine)
      http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/singlepage

      Full quote:

      REAGAN: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

      Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

      There was someone who knew how to unite conservatives and libertarians. And his “peace through strength” policy kept us out of major wars and helped put immense pressure on the Soviet Union before it formally disbanded.

      Reply
      • Aireck
        Feb 10 2012

        So Santorum ain’t no conservative. Point, set and match.

      • Dawn Shevlin
        Feb 10 2012

        Fabulous quote! Good search job. It is right on the mark I think and that is why I mentioned somewhere up there, that this is why Reagan brought us back in the 80’s because he built up our defense’s. He intervened in a foreign nation correctly because he was able to flex his muscle and get a resolution. This is life you guys. We need to be the best and the boss or life will really suck. Santorum is too hardcore conservative, not a good one to beat BO. That was always my concern with him, although there are some liberals I have met that I would love to ram Santorum up their ass’s … not at my expense of course! But I do enjoy watching them squirm while still uncertain.

    • Dawn Shevlin
      Feb 10 2012

      Ha! Good one!

      Reply
      • Don
        Feb 12 2012

        I disagree that military buildup during the Reagan years destroyed the soviet union. The soviet economy was dead in the water by central control from Moscow. The IMF had loaned the soviets money to buy weapons with and said it was for grain and food. The move by the Federal reserve banking monopoly to adjust interest rates while Carter was president drove the stock market higher and people from all over the world got in on this financial bubble that is still going on. Investments to the soviets stopped, and they went bankrupt.

      • Feb 12 2012

        Don, that’s not what I argued! I said it put pressure on the Soviets. One look at military expenditure rates as a %GDP backs up my argument.

  13. Feb 20 2012

    A while back, soneone said that he was told growing up that anybody could be President and looking at elections since adulthood, he’s beginning to believe it.

    If any doubters remain, our 2012 campaigns should be fnal, incontrovertible proof!

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Why Would I Want to Vote For This Asshole? | Daily Pundit
  2. Santorum will not be getting my vote... - City-Data Forum
  3. What Self-Respecting Libertarian Would Endorse Mitt Romney? On & About This Week’s Show «

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

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: