Skip to content

Barack Obama: America’s First Black President–If He Were a Republican

October 10, 2007


Image compliments of Lima’s Flickr

By Thought Merchant

When Barack Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 one thing was absolutely clear: he would have had a much brighter political future if he were a republican.

“Many black men simply cannot afford to raise a family — and too many have made the sad choice not to.”

“There are a lot of men out there who need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.”

These quotes are not from some right wing political pundit, but directly from Barack Obama on the subject of Black fatherhood and responsibility.

Because of the combination of perceived Republican hostility to African American political sensibilities and Black Republicans being caricatured as sambo-like Uncle Tom’s (sometimes justifiably), little notion is given to the possibility of a Black Republican who is passionately concerned about the issues facing the Black community, but unwilling to shuck and jive for the racist elements of the Republican base.

Many people fail to remember that had it not been for his role as Secretary of State in providing the arguments for the Iraq War, Collin Powell’s immense popularity among Americans would have made him an undeniable force as a Republican political candidate. 

Ironically, Colin Powell staunchly supported affirmative action, and illustrated moderate political opinions on a variety of core Republican issues. However, Powell probably would have obtained great support among Republican Party big wigs as a candidate in an attempt to break the choke hold the Democratic Party has on Black voters, and assure Republicans political victory in a presidential election.

Barack Obama Would Have Filled a Vacuum in the Republican Party

Before the rather poor assembly of current Republican candidates was gathered, the Republican party was not beyond supporting Black candidates who maintained an organic concern for the Black community, but voiced a perspective that would not alienate the Republican base. As former Republicn National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told the NAACP at their 2005 convention:

“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization,” he declared to a somewhat dubious crowd. “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

The Republican Party would have given Barack Obama the leeway to create a political agenda that would address issues affecting the Black community in a new and bold way that he could not even consider as a Democrat. This is because Obama must appease the White liberal fear of him seeming too “Black” on the issues, and potentially alienating White voters in a general election.

However, for the converse reason, Republicans would have given Obama the ability to craft a strong agenda on issues of race that was innovative in dealing with problems of the Black Community, while still encouraging their political participation. Tragically, Democrats will continue to inhibit Obama from being viewed (even remotely) as a champion of the Black community because of their constant fear of his perception as seeming too “radical” on race.

Its is this political castration when it comes to African American core issues that makes a Democratic Obama candidacy a complete wast of time, energy, and scarce resources for Black America.

A Republican Barack Obama would have garnered the huge political war chest of the Republican party, maintained the charm and persona that currently makes him appealing to Americans overall, and would have been able to maintain an assertive platform on race that would have greatly served the Black community.

Unfortunately, Obama must succumb to the stagnant attitude of the Democratic Party on any issue of race that is outside the acceptable political range for his presidential candidacy.

In conclusion, my point is not to champion the Republican Party as the salvation for all that ails African Americans in our country. Clearly the Republican party has shown hostility to many of the core concerns of the Black electorate .

What I seek to illustrate is that because of its history of strong support Black Republican candidates, and its willingness to allow policy that would benefit the Black Community in a way that would break their collective affiliation with the Democratic party, while maintaining their political base, the Republican party would have been a much stronger spring board for Barack Obama to have launched his political aspirations.

As a Republican, Barack Obama could have been the first Black President of the United States, as opposed to what Democrats want, but will never attain: Barack Obama being a United States President—that happens to be Black.

30 Comments leave one →
  1. Submariner permalink
    October 10, 2007 9:31 am

    Your opinion is quite tantalizing but not supported by the existing evidence. In Maryland we had Michael Steele, a darling of Republicans and lieutenant governor, lose the Senate campaign despite increased support by blacks for his candidacy. The Republican Party is wedded to nativism and social Darwinism. Unlike Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan’s overtures to religious and cultural conservatives there is no white charismatic Republican figure trying to lure Blacks (or Latinos for that matter) to the party. The debates at Morgan State were spurned by the leading candidates and the challenge of overcoming Democratic entrenchment was inadequately met by G.W. Bush’s mishandling of faith based initiatives and lack of support for Clinton style urban empowerment zones. The Republican Party has become dominated by the Karl Rove and Tom DeLay faction that is quite content to win narrow victories among an atomized electorate using a combination of minority voter suppression and the veneer of legitimacy offered by partisan appointees to the courts and Justice Department. A moderate conscientious Black would simply not be a suitable standard-bearer for the Republican Party as it is currently composed.

  2. October 10, 2007 11:54 am

    I don’t favor US electoral politics for many reasons. By extension, I have not followed daily news reports, white liberal blogs or campaign debates. With that said, I have a question or two.

    Do you find that Obama’s comments re: responsibility and community are in keeping with the tradition of leaders like Marcus Mosiah Garvey and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad or something else? I ask because you juxtaposed his comments with ‘right wing political pundits.’ I find that this tradition is centuries old among black folk, but we (speaking broadly here) will reject that criticism from people we believe not to working to our collective benefit.

    You mention that the Republican Party could allow for the expression of a “strong” agenda aimed at meeting the needs of Black folk. Could you speak to that. What are some of those strong agenda items? Do you have a sense of how that would play out in the GOP – with respect to national platforms/state-level platforms and fund-raising?

    I hope that’s not too much – but your post has generated some questions for me. Similarly, Submariner’s thoughtful post raises some of the initial reactions I entertained.


  3. October 10, 2007 12:37 pm

    Temple 3:
    To answer your question: I think Obama’s statement on personal responsibility and fatherhood should be taken as a general concern for the Black Community within the Garveyite and Malcolm X paradigm. I will preface that statement by admitting that it could be political stagecraft used to be “tough” on the Negroes so as to not seem like he intends to cater to their “race’ issues. That would be the ultimate in political cynicism on Obama’s part:.Trying to act hard on Blacks to keep the White liberals happy so as to assure general acceptance by the Overall electorate. However, that strategy would be the extreme logical conclusion of the reality that he will not strongly address African American political concerns out of that same fear of alienating white voters. However, we do not have the evidence to be that cynical about Obama–YET.

    Part II of your Question:

    From Temple 3

    “You mention that the Republican Party could allow for the expression of a “strong” agenda aimed at meeting the needs of Black folk. Could you speak to that.”

    One Republican who I can remember that strongly addressed concern for issues addressing African Americans, particularly in the urban areas was Jack Kemp. Kemp was the 1996 vice-presidential running mate of then Bob Dole. Kemp was former secretary of Housing and Urban Development . Kemp advocated heavily to use private sector solutions to assist African Americans buy houses, obtain employment, and improve their overall economic condition. A Republican Barack Obama could have advocated a similar plan as Kemp.

    “Jack Kemp plotted a strategy of inclusion of African Americans and the poor, saying he wanted the party to return to its roots in the days of Abraham Lincoln. “I believe with all my heart that there is a struggle going on for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. That party must be inclusive, not exclusive, it must be progressive and conservative, not reactionary and conservative.”

    “Kemp advocated–tenant ownership of public housing, school vouchers, enterprise zones, removal of the ban on welfare to people who possessed assets worth more than a specified amount–presupposed a vision of the poor as potentially competent, hard-working, and even entrepreneurial people. Since that’s what the poor had to be like for the policies favored by Kemp & Co. to work, then that was how they must be.

    The core belief of Kemp-style optimists is that America’s plush welfare programs, combined with the absence of steady, low-skilled jobs in the immediate vicinity of the urban poor, presented poor people with something very much like a high marginal tax rate if they moved from dependency to work. The cut-off of welfare payments to families that owned substantial assets amounted to a high marginal tax on saving The ready availability of welfare to single mothers, in conjunction with the lack of jobs for the unskilled young men produced by ghetto schools, discouraged wedlock. All America had to do to move people out of dependency and into work and marriage was reverse the pattern of incentives and disincentives.

    But how to do it? Kemp advocated two specific programs: the privatization of public housing and the creation of enterprise zones. Kemp did not just believe in these two ideas; he crusaded for them. In testimony before Congress, the new HUD secretary promised that tenant ownership of public housing “is going to save babies, save children, save families and save America.” Kemp was inspired by the huge success of the privatization of public housing in Great Britain. More than one-third of the British population lived in housing owned by the state in 1979. Over the next dozen years, 1.5 million of the 6.5 million council houses, as they were called, were sold to their occupants at concessionary prices. The new owners were converted from wards of the state into independent householders–and uncoincidentally from Labour into Conservative voters.”

    From :

  4. October 10, 2007 12:50 pm

    I’ve got one for you, ThoughtMerchant.


    Colin Powell had RESIGNED

    Instead of LIED at the UN, giving cover to this illegal war…

    He could be the frontrunner of the GOP field right now.

  5. October 10, 2007 12:53 pm

    Barack Obama would never have been elected Senator as a bi-racial man who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia if he had been a Republican. Not from Illinois, he wouldn’t have been. He would never have been able to get a foothold in politics. Remember, he was State Senator, then ran for Congress, then Senator. Where would he have gotten the base for his politics in Illinois as a Black man? In the GOP seats, because surely not in Chicago.

  6. October 10, 2007 1:04 pm

    Barring being bi-racial and being from Hawaii and growing up in Indonesia, you could ask the same question about Michael Steele who came VERY close to winning the U.S. Senate seat in a State that is even more liberal than Illinois. Also, Steele was a popular Lt. Govenor in that State. (I’m not saying I’m a fan of Michael Steel, just using the example.)

    I would argue that Harold Ford would have won Tennessee if he were a Republican as well. (I’m not saying I’m a fan of Harold Ford, just using the example.)

    I’m not saying I agree with the Republicans as a party. I’m saying that if they found a Black candidate that didn’t shuck and jive and actually cared about improving the lives of Black people, and had bold new ideas to do so–in the Jack Kemp model, he could go all the way to the Whitehouse.

  7. October 10, 2007 1:25 pm

    The problem is…where were the WHITE REPUBLICANS FOR STEELE?

    I have to ask this, because

    What WHITE Republican has lost an election, in the past 60 years, when they’ve garnered 30% of the BLACK VOTE?



    So, how is it that Steele GOT 30% of the Black vote…and still lost?


    If the GOP had meant right, they would have given JC Watts a LEADERSHIP position in Congress…

    They would have worked to get Watts the GOVERNORSHIP of Oklahoma.

    I don’t agree with his politics, but Watts would have been a terrific candidate, and one of the few Republicans that doesn’t make me go ‘ What the hell is wrong with you?’

  8. October 10, 2007 1:53 pm

    Who do you think had more of likelyhood of giving JC Watts a leadership position in the House? Democrats or Republicans? He wouldn’t have even been considered in the Democratic party.

    Also, Steele ran in a poltical climate that was highly ANTI-REPUBLICAN in a state that is majority Democrat. Even with 30% of the Black vote, which is only 25% in that state, a White Republican Senator would not have been guarenteed in that election cycle. Macaca man of Virginia George Allen who lost, barring his major gaff, in a highly republican state shows how bad that election was for Republicans.

    Just look at who gets the money per politcal party in Maryland:

    Republicans only got 36.7% of the money in 2005-2006. Steele still would have had a political fight as White candidate in that politcal climate in that particular election.

    Category Total Rank
    Total Itemized Contributions † $43,855,613 9
    Total to Democrats $26,986,913 8
    Percent to Democrats 61.5% 5
    Total to Republicans $16,092,856 15
    Percent to Republicans 36.7% 45
    Individual donations ($200+)* $44,273,027 9
    Levin Funds $0 38
    PAC donations $8,990,94 6


  9. October 10, 2007 2:27 pm

    Who do you think had more of likelyhood of giving JC Watts a leadership position in the House? Democrats or Republicans? He wouldn’t have even been considered in the Democratic party.

    The Republicans had control back then, and they had changed the rules about seniority, so that wasn’t a problem. So, they could have easily given Watts a leadership role, if they had wanted to.

    Steele got MORE of the Black vote running for Senator than he got when running for Lt. Governor. All things being equal, he should have won that race.

    IF the GOP had actually gotten behind Watts for Governor, at the very least, he would currently be on the GOP short list as a CREDIBLE VP candidate.

  10. October 10, 2007 4:17 pm

    Excellent post!
    The Republican party has recently been the subject of some ridicule for ignoring the black vote by, for one, not attending Tavis Smiley’s debate a week or so back. It’s been said that Republicans really don’t feel the need to cater to minorities because of their strong Southern, evangelical base. If this is true, and a bunch of Southern Rednecks are all that is needed to win the election, I don’t know if Barack would have been able to survive in the Republican party either.

    But make no mistake your points are excellent. I for the life of me cannot understand why the democratic party, fueled by black opinion, are favoring Hillary more than Barack. It’s evident that he KNOWS what our issues are and is attacking them head on. She’ll just bury them under the rug. She was, up until not too long ago, considered a conservative democrat. That’s a problem.

    Perhaps Barack would’ve been a good candidate for the Independent/Green Party? Just a thought.

    Seattle Slim

  11. October 10, 2007 7:32 pm

    Your post is interesting and well thought out and I thank you for posting a comment on my blog. Please understand that I do loath all Republicans, just the ones running the Republican party right now (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rice, neo-con religious right, etc.) These people harbor a destructive and counter productive ideological agenda that has wrought havoc on the middle class and peoples around the globe, in the name of greed and short-sighted hubris.

    I fully support Obama. His policies and positions make sense and seem to support middle class ideals, African Americans included. Too bad the Republicans don’t have him because they sorely need someone with his level of intelligence and morality.

    I’d like to add your sight to my blogroll with your permission and hope you do the same with mine. It’s a pleasure to read well thought out commentary.

  12. October 10, 2007 10:03 pm

    I have been following Senator Obama’s career ever since he ran for the Senate. I have wondered what it is that people see in him. I routinely have gone to crowds specifically so that I would be a speck of pepper in a sea of salt. And, I have seen that, for some, he has IT.

    Would he have IT for a GOP crowd? You have to think about it. Would he have IT for the GOP base? He could probably win over the Independents, but in order to get that far, he has to win over the GOP base. Could he have done that?

    I don’t know. You do pose a great question, though. I just don’t think it’s because he’s a Democrat that Obama is appealing. He’s just that IT quality, but it’s the POLICIES of the GOP that make the Black community, for the most part HURL. That said, if Colin Powell had run, I would have voted for him without hesitation, because he wasn’t a Black Republican that made me think they had lost their mind.

  13. dblhelix permalink
    October 11, 2007 2:15 am

    rikyrah: So, how is it that Steele GOT 30% of the Black vote…and still lost?

    Because he got 25% of the Black vote and only 30% of the statewide electorate is registered Republican. 23% of the voters in the election were Black, so that gets him a total of 36%. As I’ll detail below, this means that even white Dems/Indys voted for him.

    Steele won white males 54-45, by 9pts! According to the exit poll, 36% of the voters were white males, so this means substantially all Republicans voted for him as well as some indies and white Democrats.

    He won ALL white voters in the state by 2 pts, 50-48. He won in 18 of 24 MD counties w/ almost no Black voters.

    It was not Republicans or whites that kept him out of office — it was white (D) women and Black women. In fact, there was a 10pt difference in Black men vs Black women voting for Steele (32% vs 22%).

    It’s very simple. Republican policies are hostile to women. Steele spent most of his time when talking to Black women about how he would single-handedly change the GOP from within — nobody was buying it. You only have to look now to the current SCHP situation to understand why.

    Also, MD is a very pro-choice state, across racial lines — in fact, Black voters in MD poll 77%-23% in favor (76%-74% for whites), so as you can imagine, Steele’s pro-life position got hammered in ads.

  14. dblhelix permalink
    October 11, 2007 2:22 am

    With respect to Steele as a popular Lt. Gov — really? In my experience, he only got points for being marginally more familiar w/ the DC suburbs than Cardin.

    When then-Gov Ehrlich held a fundraiser at an all-white country club in the Baltimore area, Steele’s position was that it did not concern him. That, and other positions, earned him this.

    In terms of the Black vote share he captured, don’t forget that he benefited from some resentment over Mfume’s loss.

  15. October 11, 2007 8:49 am


    Great picture on Steele. Thanks for explaining things to me.

    I miss A Pedestrian View.

    Will you come back to Skeptical Brotha? We’ve missed you and NMP.

  16. Submariner permalink
    October 11, 2007 10:08 am

    Helix, thanks for the substantive contribution. People tend to underestimate the degree that the alliance between Blacks and the Democrat Party is by design and mutually beneficial. I’m not accusing Thought Merchant of this, but the current dominant narrative is that Black Democrats are subservient and get very little return on their investment. Not true. Black Dems are an essential part of Congressional leadership. I also expect that Latinos will overwhelmingly lean Democratic because of the Republican embrace of natavism. For Blacks to occupy the vacuum that TM described would require Republican leadership to abnegate policies that favor white nationalism and social Darwinism.

  17. October 11, 2007 12:06 pm

    I refer you to my post entitled: “How Bill Clinton Hurt the Black Poor, and Hillary Might to” and ask how exactly did African Americans benefit from supporting Bill Clinton as a Democratic condidate when truly analyzing his record on core issues important to Blacks.

    And not only the Black poor. Remember Clinton did nothing as the States of California and Texas basically eliminated Affirmative Action in higher education. Hence, his affinity for the Black middle class can also be questioned

  18. October 11, 2007 3:47 pm


    You are right when you said that Jack Kemp was the kind of Republican that could attract Black folk. If Jack Kemp was the NORM and not the EXCEPTION in the GOP, I easily see there being 30-35% of the Black community in the GOP. Easily.

    I believe there is a natural constituency for Blacks in the GOP, but outside of the 10% they already get, the other 20-25% just refuse to go to a party that they consider OUTWARDLY HOSTILE to them.

    While some consider benign neglect (the Democrats) bad, most folks believe that someone OUTWARDLY HOSTILE (the GOP) to you is worse.

  19. Submariner permalink
    October 12, 2007 11:58 pm

    As DeWayne Wickham has written, the Clinton legacy with respect to blacks is complicated. But no constituency gets everything it wants. Even religious conservatives, according to David Kuo, are dissatisfied with G.W. Bush.

    No one can confuse the overt antagonism of the current Department of Justice with that of Clinton. While I support affirmative action, I do believe that the next stage for blacks is to seize control of our political destiny on a local level and from that work outwardly to a national format. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter but he said something tonight on PBS News Hour that was quite significant. He said the tougher the problem the more local must be the solution.

    I don’t reduce the relations of Blacks with the Democrat Party to Bill Clinton or any single person. I agree with Ralph Ellison that LBJ was the best president for the poor and Blacks. And we know that he was a mixed bag. One figure, even as important as the POTUS, doesn’t determine the relation of any group to either party. As Helix skillfully detailed, it’s policies that are decisive. Overall, Blacks have recently been better served by the Democrats than Republicans. But that can change if Republicans make some ambitious moves. But such a shift would be tectonic in nature. Much like the shift that would be necessary for Giuliani to win the GOP race. But if he does win then the first Black President may well be a Republican.

  20. October 13, 2007 12:47 am

    But that can change if Republicans make some ambitious moves. But such a shift would be tectonic in nature. Much like the shift that would be necessary for Giuliani to win the GOP race. But if he does win then the first Black President may well be a Republican.

    You’re not saying that a Rudy win would mean some sort of GOP shift for Blacks, do you? Rudy might not be a Southerner, but his positions against Black folk are obvious. Rudy becomes President and the Democrats might get even more Black vote, if that’s possible.

  21. Submariner permalink
    October 13, 2007 10:33 am

    A Giuliani (or Romney) victory would not mean an enlightenment as far as Blacks are concerned. What it would signal is the ascendancy of Eastern regional elites or as they were known in the past, the Rockefeller Republicans. The antipathy for urban America and secular humanism entrenched in the GOP would have to recede greatly for either of these men to win the primary. Such a victory, however, would potentially serve as a portal of entry for Blacks into the party. Concurrently, the Democrats may shift to embrace religious conservatives who would feel alienated by such an outcome.

    I work with an evangelical Republican, and he tells me there is no way that Southern Baptists and Pentecostals would ever vote for a Mormon. These folks are not thrilled with Giuliani either. Also, Giuliani is like a basketball player who can only move right and drive to the basket. He looks good against weak competition. But match him up against a superior defender who forces him left and to take an outside jumper then his deficiencies become all too self-evident. Rudy is wearing the fig leaf of 9/11. Take that away and you expose a soft underbelly.

    If Rudy or Mitt does pull it off then a major barrier to blacks coalescing around the Republicans would be removed. The bonds of religion and geography that enfold current GOP members would come undone.

  22. October 14, 2007 5:27 pm

    If Rudy or Mitt does pull it off then a major barrier to blacks coalescing around the Republicans would be removed. The bonds of religion and geography that enfold current GOP members would come undone.

    Mitt is from a religion, that, IN MY LIFETIME (and I’m not 40), defined that the ONLY way Black folk were getting into heaven WAS AS SLAVES.


    Two names

    Abner Louima
    Amadu Diallo

    I’m sorry, but I don’t see where either one of them would mean that a barrier to Black folk coming to the GOP has come down.

    Now, if back-in-the-day JACK KEMP had won, then yes, I’d follow your logic.

    But, not Rudy or Mitt. They’re just as hostile to Black folk as anyone currently in the GOP.

  23. Submariner permalink
    October 15, 2007 8:29 am

    Romney’s religion is not a centerpiece of his campaign. He certainly espouses ‘family values’ but he and Giuliani are much more secular. The bond of religion that I refer to are Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, and evangelical in nature. Mormons are outside this tradition.

    In recent history Republicans have bivouaced in the South and West. Rudy and Mitt gained power in the heart of Northeastern liberal elitism. Their national prominence reflects a rise in influence of a region that has been held in contempt by the GOP.

    Rikyrah, you omitted the opening paragraph of my statement. I never said that these particular guys would embrace Blacks. I simply said that these men come from outside the coalition that has recently propelled Republicans to power. Consequently, this may evolve into the nascent stage for urban Blacks to rise to significance in the Republican Party. The decisive factor would be a policy proposal that shares the wealth of the nation with large cities.

  24. October 15, 2007 11:06 pm

    Rikyrah, you omitted the opening paragraph of my statement. I never said that these particular guys would embrace Blacks. I simply said that these men come from outside the coalition that has recently propelled Republicans to power. Consequently, this may evolve into the nascent stage for urban Blacks to rise to significance in the Republican Party. The decisive factor would be a policy proposal that shares the wealth of the nation with large cities.

    But, I’m not feeling your supposition. They’ve all done their time kissing the asses of the Usual Suspects, basically promising them their firstborns. There is absolutely nothing in Romney nor Giuliani’s histories that would indicate to the Black community that the GOP is welcoming to them now. Nothing.

    One day there might be the election from someone in the GOP that would signal that. But, not one of the current GOP candidates.

  25. dblhelix permalink
    October 16, 2007 6:00 am

    rikyrah, big picture time — if I had to slap a label on PG’s MD-04, I would say Rockefeller Republican all the way. Liberal on domestic and social policies while favoring growth through entrepreneurship; supporters of New Deal programs while calling for greater efficiency in their management; strong support for infrastructure improvement.

    The idea is that the election of a Giuliani may signal a shift away from the alliance of radical free market and social conservatism that currently dominates the GOP and may ultimately restore the Rockefeller Republican wing, or a reasonable fascimile.

    In fact, we may even be lucky enough to get rid of Bishop Harry Jackson in the process.

  26. Submariner permalink
    October 16, 2007 9:34 am

    Helix, thanks for making my point more explicit.

  27. lovely and amazing permalink
    January 7, 2008 1:51 pm

    Barack Obama is a Republican in the true tradition of the party. Calling himself a Democrat is strategic. There are many people who get this and are crossing party lines to vote for him. Just my opinion.

  28. lovely and amazing permalink
    January 7, 2008 1:52 pm

    Oh, I think the strategic decision to call himself a Democrat was made a very long time ago at he start of his career.

  29. Jerry Lemieux permalink
    January 18, 2008 12:40 pm

    You have to be kidding!!! If Obama was a Republican, the media would be having a field day his church membership and the anti-Semitic bigot who leads it.

  30. Jerry Lemieux permalink
    January 18, 2008 12:41 pm

    You have to be kidding!!! If Obama was a Republican, the media would be having a field day regarding his church membership and the anti-Semitic bigot who leads it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: