Libertarian Organizations

Here are some of the Libertarian Organizations that promote their agenda.

Cato Institute


Cato Institute propaganda center.

From the Cato web site:

Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues

Founded in 1977, Cato owes to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power.

Almost a generation before Washington, Henry, and Jefferson were even born, two Englishmen, concealing their identities with the honored ancient name of Cato, wrote newspaper articles condemning tyranny and advancing principles of liberty that immensely influenced American colonists.

The Englishmen were John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. Their prototype was Cato the Younger (95-46 B.C.), the implacable foe of Julius Caesar and a champion of liberty and republican principles. Their 144 essays were published from 1720 to 1723, originally in the London Journal, later in the British Journal. Subsequently collected as Cato’s Letters, these “Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious” became, as Clinton Rossiter has remarked, “the most popular, quotable, esteemed source of political ideas in the colonial period.” This new two-volume edition offers minimally modernized versions of the letters from the four-volume sixth edition printed in London in 1755.

C A T O’s
VOL I.Cato Letters Book One

C A T O’s
Printed for W. WILKINS, T. WOOD-
Cato Letters Book Two

C A T O’s

Cato Letters Book Three PDF


Cato Letters Book Four PDF

Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution

— individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — turn out to be even more powerful in today’s world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.

How Cato Is Funded

In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding. Cato receives approximately 80 percent of its funding through tax-deductible contributions from individuals, many of whom are responding to informative direct mail solicitations and program updates. The remainder of its support comes from foundations, corporations, and the sale of books and publications.

Cato Financials for 2017 pdf

Cato’s Resources & Outreach

In an era of sound bites and partisanship, Cato remains dedicated to providing clear, thoughtful, and independent analysis on vital public policy issues. Using all mean to possible — from blogs, Web features, informative direct mail, op-eds and TV appearances, to conferences, research reports, speaking engagements, and books — Cato works vigorously to present citizens with incisive and understandable analysis.

The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Our vision is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles.

The Range of Cato’s Work The principles of liberty and limited government impact nearly every dimension of public policy.

Consequently, Cato scholars focus on a wide range of areas. Each topic below is linked to a continually updated list of comprehensive studies, commentaries, books, articles, multi-media resources, and more, prepared by Cato scholars.
According to economic theory, private schooling should improve student achievement by increasing competitive pressures on educators to provide high-quality educational experiences.

In addition, since children have differing interests, abilities, and learning styles, private school choice would allow for an improved match between educators and students.

In a new study, Cato scholar Corey A. DeAngelis finds that small increases in private shares of primary schooling enrollment leads to moderate increases in students achievement.

Private-sector utilities provide the bulk of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution in the United States. However, the federal government also owns a share of the nation’s electricity infrastructure.

A new bulletin argues that federal power infrastructure should be privatized and that subsidies to rural electric cooperatives should be ended

Local zoning and land-use regulations have increased substantially over the decades. These constraints on land development within cities and suburbs aim to achieve various safety, environmental, and aesthetic goals.

But the regulations have also tended to reduce the supply of housing, including multifamily and low-income housing. A new study shows that rising land-use regulation is associated with rising real average home prices in 44 states and that rising zoning regulation is associated with rising real average home prices in 36 states In less than a decade,

cryptocurrencies have moved from the fringes of financial market activity to a $300 billion asset class traded on exchanges and owned by mainstream investors. Yet a great deal of regulatory uncertainty still surrounds cryptocurrencies

discusses how cryptocurrencies fit established regulatory practice, and proposes a framework to provide greater regulatory certainty to market participants and enable the growth of this new technology while fulfilling the policy objectives of the relevant regulatory agencies.

Most of the time, one person’s cash is just as acceptable as the next person’s. Having cash in hand is good enough for any purchase one might wish to make.

Federal securities laws do not adhere to this principle, however. Although almost anyone is permitted to buy shares in companies that have conducted a registered public offering, the private securities markets are far more exclusive. In a new paper style=”color:White;”>

argues that current regulations governing the sale of private securities restrict investors’ access to investment in the guise of protecting them. But in fact this protection often prevents investors from taking the kinds of risks necessary to earn a return.
of 2,000 U.S. adults finds that Americans distrust government financial regulators as much as they distrust Wall Street. Nearly half (48%) have “hardly any confidence” in either.

Americans do not think that regulators help banks make better business decisions (74%) or better decisions about how much risk to take (68%). Instead, Americans want regulators to focus on preventing banks and financial institutions from committing fraud (65%) and ensuring banks and financial institutions fulfil their obligations to customers (56%).

There are a proliferation of war memorials in our nation’s capital, and a proliferation of young Americans sent abroad to fight in the years since 9/11.

As work begins on the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial,

Cato’s Director of Foreign Policy Studies Christopher Preble remarks how the memorials are a sign that America is in the business of war, and suggests instead to erect memorials to those who got us out of, and kept us out of, these wars.

new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal – 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs. “These data show why censoring offensive speech is difficult—Americans can’t agree what speech is offensive or shouldn’t be allowed,

What is deeply offensive to one person may simply be a political opinion to another. These data show that if we silence speech that any number of people find offensive, we will shut down a wide variety of important political debates

The direction of public policy is far less clear than usual after an election. Almost a full year into President Trump’s new administration, we still don’t know what kind of policy will be enacted in several areas.

At the Cato Institute, we stand firmly on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — on the bedrock American values of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.

Throughout our 40 years, we have been willing to criticize officials of both parties when they sought to take the country in another direction.

gives concrete advice on how to promote those American values and restore government to its proper role.

society while reducing political society. The differences: In civil society individuals make choices about their lives while in a political society someone else makes or attempts to greatly influence those choices.

This vision brings the wisdom of the American Founders to bear on the problems of today. As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century. Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, recognizing that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world. It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite. The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does. Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age. Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Libertarians have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society. We applaud the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence to more people, especially to women, African-Americans, religious minorities, and gay and lesbian people. Our greatest challenge today is to continue to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[6][7] Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.[8] According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 15 in the “Top Think Tanks Worldwide” and number 10 in the “Top Think Tanks in the United States”.[9]
Cato Institute.svg
1974; 44 years ago[1]

Ed Crane, Charles Koch, Murray Rothbard
Non-profit think tank
Tax ID no.
Registration no.
Public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence
1000 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
38°54′12″N 77°01′35″W
President and CEO
Peter N. Goettler[2]
Robert A. Levy[2]
Executive Vice-President
David Boaz[3]
Budget (FYE March 2015)
Revenue: $37.3 million
Expenses: $29.4 million[4]
$72,934,328 (2015)
100 staff
46 faculty
70 adjunct faculty
Formerly called
Charles Koch Foundation; Cato Foundation
The institute was founded in December 1974 in Wichita, Kansas as the Charles Koch Foundation and initially funded by Charles Koch.[nb 2][10] The other members of the first board of directors included co-founder Murray Rothbard, libertarian scholar Earl Ravenal, and businessmen Sam H. Husbands Jr. and David H. Padden.[6][11] At the suggestion of Rothbard,[11] the institute changed its name in 1976 to Cato Institute after Cato’s Letters, a series of British essays penned in the early 18th century by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon.[12][13]

Cato relocated first to San Francisco, California in 1977, then to Washington, D.C. in 1981, settling initially in a historic house on Capitol Hill.[14](p446) The Institute moved to its current location on Massachusetts Avenue in 1993. Cato Institute was named the fifth-ranked think tank in the world for 2009 in a study of think tanks by James G. McGann, PhD of the University of Pennsylvania, based on a criterion of excellence in “producing rigorous and relevant research, publications and programs in one or more substantive areas of research”.[15]
Various Cato programs were favorably ranked in a survey published by the University of Pennsylvania in 2012.[9]
The Cato Institute publishes numerous policy studies, briefing papers, periodicals, and books. Peer-reviewed academic journals include the Cato Journal[16][17][18] and Regulation.[19][20][21] Other periodicals include Cato’s Letter,[22] Cato Supreme Court Review,[23] and Cato Policy Report.[24] Cato published Inquiry Magazine from 1977 to 1982 (before transferring it to the Libertarian Review Foundation)[25] and Literature of Liberty from 1978 to 1979 (before transferring it to the Institute for Humane Studies).[26]

Notable books from Cato and Cato scholars include:

Human Freedom Index
In Defense of Global Capitalism
The Improving State of the World
Restoring the Lost Constitution
Web projects
In addition to maintaining its own website in English and Spanish,[27] Cato maintains websites focused on particular topics:

“Downsizing the Federal Government” contains essays on the size of the U.S. federal government and recommendations for decreasing various programs.[28] is a website focused on the theory and practice of libertarianism.
Cato Unbound, a web-only publication that features a monthly open debate between four people. The conversation begins with one lead essay, followed by three response essays by separate people. After that, all four participants can write as many responses and counter-responses as they want for the duration of that month. contains reports and stories from Cato’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project and the National Police Misconduct News Feed.[29]
Overlawyered is a law blog on the subject of tort reform run by author Walter Olson. is an interactive data web project that catalogs increases in prosperity driven by the free market.
“Public Schooling Battle Map” illustrates different moral conflicts that result from public schooling.[30]
Social media sponsored by Cato includes “Daily Podcasts” (through iTunes and RSS feeds), plus pages on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube.[31]

Speakers at Cato have included Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato.[32][33][34] In 2009 Czech Republic President Václav Klaus spoke at a conference.[35]
Ideological relationships Edit
Libertarianism, classical liberalism, and conservatism Edit
Many Cato scholars advocate support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies,[36] drug liberalization,[37] and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and laws restricting consensual sexual activity.[38][39] The Cato Institute officially resists being labeled as part of the conservative movement because “‘conservative’ smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo”.[40]

In 2006, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos proposed the term “Libertarian Democrat” to describe his particular liberal position, suggesting that libertarians should be allies of the Democratic Party. Replying, Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey agreed that libertarians and liberals should view each other as natural ideological allies,[41] and noted continuing differences between mainstream liberal views on economic policy and Cato’s “Jeffersonian philosophy”. Cato has stated on its “About Cato” page: “The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato’s work has increasingly come to be called ‘libertarianism’ or ‘market liberalism.’ It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.”[42]

Some Cato scholars disagree with conservatives on neo-conservative foreign policy, albeit that this has not always been uniform.[43]
John A. Allison IV speaking at the 2014 International Students for Liberty Conference (ISFLC)
Further information: Objectivism and libertarianism
The relationship between Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) improved with the nomination of Cato’s new president John A. Allison IV in 2012. He is a former ARI board member and is reported to be an “ardent devotee” of Rand who has promoted reading her books to colleges nationwide.[44] In March 2015 Allison retired and was replaced by Peter Goettler. Allison remains on the Cato Institute’s board.[45]
The Cato Institute advocates policies that advance “individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace”. They are libertarian in their policy positions, typically advocating diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide. Cato was cited by columnist Ezra Klein as nonpartisan, saying that it is “the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life” and it “advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power”;[46] and Eric Lichtblau called Cato “one of the country’s most widely cited research organizations.”[47] Nina Eastman reported in 1995 that “on any given day, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas might be visiting for lunch. Or Cato staffers might be plotting strategy with House Majority Leader Dick Armey, another Texan, and his staff.”[48]
On domestic issues Cato scholars have consistently called for the privatization of many government services and institutions, including NASA, Social Security, the United States Postal Service, the Transportation Security Administration, public schooling, public transportation systems, and public broadcasting.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]

The institute opposes minimum wage laws, saying that they violate the freedom of contract and thus private property rights, and increase unemployment.[57][58] It is opposed to expanding overtime regulations, arguing that it will benefit some employees in the short term, while costing jobs or lowering wages of others, and have no meaningful long-term impact.[59][60] It opposes child labor prohibitions.[61][62][63] It opposes public sector unions and supports right-to-work laws.[64][65] It opposes universal health care, arguing that it is harmful to patients and an intrusion onto individual liberty.[66][67] It is against affirmative action.[68] It has also called for total abolition of the welfare state, and has argued that it should be replaced with reduced business regulations to create more jobs, and argues that private charities are fully capable of replacing it.[69][70] Cato has also opposed antitrust laws.[71][72]

Cato is an opponent of campaign finance reform, arguing that government is the ultimate form of potential corruption and that such laws undermine democracy by undermining competitive elections. Cato also supports the repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act.[73][74]

Cato has published strong criticisms of the 1998 settlement which many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[75] In 2004, Cato scholar Daniel Griswold wrote in support of President George W. Bush’s failed proposal to grant temporary work visas to otherwise undocumented laborers which would have granted limited residency for the purpose of employment in the U.S.[76]

The Cato Institute published a study proposing a Balanced Budget Veto Amendment to the United States Constitution.[77]

In 2003, Cato filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the 14th Amendment, among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion for the Court.[78]

In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the Federal Marriage Amendment as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic.[79] The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.

Cato scholars have been sharp critics of current U.S. drug policy and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.[80] Additionally, the Cato Institute opposes smoking bans[81] and mandatory use of safety belts.[82]

Criticism of corporate welfare Edit
In 2004, the Institute published a paper arguing in favor of “drug re-importation”.[83] Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls “corporate welfare”, the practice of public officials funneling taxpayer money, usually via targeted budgetary spending, to politically connected corporate interests.[84][85][86][87]

Cato president Ed Crane and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope co-wrote a 2002 op-ed piece in The Washington Post calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington, D.C. lobbyists.[88] Again in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican Energy Bill as a give-away to corporate interests.[89]

On copyright issues Edit
A 2006 study criticized the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.[90]

On foreign policy Edit
Cato’s non-interventionist foreign policy views, and strong support for civil liberties, have frequently led Cato scholars to criticize those in power, both Republican and Democratic. Cato scholars opposed President George H. W. Bush’s 1991 Gulf War operations (a position which caused the organization to lose nearly $1 million in funding),[14](p454) President Bill Clinton’s interventions in Haiti and Kosovo, President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and President Barack Obama’s 2011 military intervention in Libya.[91] As a response to the September 11 attacks, Cato scholars supported the removal of al Qaeda and the Taliban regime from power, but are against an indefinite and open-ended military occupation of Afghanistan.[92] Cato scholars criticized U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.[91]

Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato’s Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, criticized many of the arguments offered to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the war’s earliest critics, Carpenter wrote in January 2002: “Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq’s political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems.”[93]

Carpenter also predicted: “Most notably there is the issue posed by two persistent regional secession movements: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.”[93] But in 2002 Carpenter wrote, “the United States should not shrink from confronting al-Qaeda in its Pakistani lair,”[94] a position echoed in the Institute’s Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress.[95] Cato’s Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Christopher Preble, argues in The Power Problem:

How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free, that America’s position as an unrivaled superpower tempts policymakers to constantly overreach and to redefine ever more broadly the “national interest”.[96]

Christopher Preble has said that the “scare campaign” to protect military spending from cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 has backfired.[97]

On environmental policy Edit
Cato scholars have written about the issues of the environment, including global warming, environmental regulation, and energy policy. and Scientific American have criticized Cato’s work on global warming.[98][99] A December 2003 Cato panel included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy.[citation needed] Michaels, Balling and Christy agreed that global warming is related at least some degree to human activity but that some scientists and the media have overstated the danger.[citation needed] The Cato Institute has also criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive and ineffective:

No known mechanism can stop global warming in the near term. International agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance.[100]

Cato scholars have been critical of the Bush administration’s views on energy policy. In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren said the Republican Energy Bill was “hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects”.[101] They also spoke out against the former president’s calls for larger ethanol subsidies.[102]

With regard to the “Takings Clause” of the United States Constitution and environmental protection, libertarians associated with Cato contend that the Constitution is not adequate to guarantee the protection of private property rights.[103]

Other commentaries of presidential administrations Edit
George W. Bush administration

Cato scholars were critical of George W. Bush’s Republican administration (2001–2009) on several issues, including education,[104] and excessive government spending.[105] On other issues, they supported Bush administration initiatives, most notably health care,[106] Social Security,[107][108] global warming,[100] tax policy,[109] and immigration.[76][110][111][112]

2008 election campaign commentaries
During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.[113][114]

Barack Obama administration
Cato has criticized President Obama’s stances on policy issues such as fiscal stimulus,[115] healthcare reform,[116] foreign policy,[117] and drug-related matters,[37] while supporting his stance on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell[39] and the DREAM Act.[36]

Donald Trump administration
Cato was strongly critical of Trump’s immigration ban, which was enacted in January 2017.[118]
The Cato Institute is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. For revenue, the Institute is largely dependent on private contributions.

The Cato Institute reported fiscal year 2015 revenue of $37.3 million and expenses of $29.4 million.[4] According to the organization’s annual report, $32.1 million came from individual donors, $2.9 million came from foundations, $1.2 million came from program revenue and other income, and $1 million came from corporations.[4]

Sponsors of Cato have included FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods Market.[119] The Nation reported support for Cato from the tobacco industry in a 2012 story.[120]

Funding details
Funding details as of FYE March 2015:[4]
The Cato Institute is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. For revenue, the Institute is largely dependent on private contributions. The Cato Institute reported fiscal year 2015 revenue of $37.3 million and expenses of $29.4 million.[4] According to the organization’s annual report, $32.1 million came from individual donors, $2.9 million came from foundations, $1.2 million came from program revenue and other income, and $1 million came from corporations.[4]

Sponsors of Cato have included FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods Market.[119] The Nation reported support for Cato from the tobacco industry in a 2012 story.[120]
Shareholder dispute and departure of Ed Crane Edit
According to an agreement signed in 1977, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David Koch, Ed Crane,[121] and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011.[122] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen’s shares.[121][122]

Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen’s shares should first be offered to the board of the Institute, and then to the remaining shareholders.[123]

Crane contended that Niskanen’s share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into “some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P…. It’s detrimental to Cato, it’s detrimental to Koch Industries, it’s detrimental to the libertarian movement.”[47]

In June 2012, Cato announced an agreement in principle to settle the dispute by changing the institute’s governing structure. Under the agreement, a board replaced the shareholders and Crane, who at the time was also Chief Executive Officer, retired. Former BB&T bank CEO John A. Allison IV replaced him.[124][125] The Koch brothers agreed to drop two lawsuits.[126]

In 2018, several former Cato employees alleged longtime sexual harassment by Crane, going back to the 1990s and continuing until his departure in 2012. Politico reported that he settled one such claim in 2012. Crane denied the allegations.[127]
Cato senior fellow Robert A. Levy personally funded the plaintiffs’ successful Supreme Court challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller), on the basis of the Second Amendment.[128]

In January 2008, Dom Armentano wrote an op-ed piece about UFOs and classified government data in the Vero Beach Press-Journal.[129]

Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz Amazon wrote that “I won’t deny that this latest op-ed played a role in our decision…” to drop Armentano as a Cato adjunct scholar.[130]

The following Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates have worked with Cato:[131]

Gary S. Becker
James M. Buchanan
Ronald Coase
Milton Friedman
Friedrich Hayek
Robert Mundell
Douglass C. North
Edward C. Prescott
Thomas C. Schelling
Vernon L. Smith->–>


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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