Australian Senate to Turn Up the Blowtorch on the Great Wind Power Fraud


Australian Senate turns the blowtorch on the wind power fraud.


The Senate is about to launch into a full-blown attack on the wind industry and the fictions which have sustained it. Until now.

We’ll open the batting with some moaning from the greentard’s favourite megaphone, The Guardian.

Crossbench senators back another inquiry into wind power
The Guardian
Lenore Taylor
18 November 2014

Examination into the effects of wind energy on power prices, human health and wildlife set to go ahead

Senators opposed to wind energy are set to establish yet another inquiry into its alleged effects on power prices, human health and wildlife – but the government is insisting they have to abolish an existing inquiry to set it up.

On the list of inquiries that could go is an investigation of the Abbott government’s budget cuts or the Palmer United party-instigated inquiry into “Queensland government administration”.

The new inquiry – the latest in a long list of investigations into renewable energy and wind power – is proposed by crossbench senators David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day and Liberal Chris Back, all of whom have argued for the abolition of the renewable energy target, which underpins wind energy in Australia.

It is also supported by Palmer United party senator-in-exile, Jacqui Lambie, despite the Palmer United party’s strong support for renewable energy and the renewable energy target, and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, who argues wind energy is crowding out other forms of renewable power. It is also backed by Motoring Enthusiast senator Ricky Muir. This gives it enough votes to pass.

Lambie is voting against all government bills because she is angry at the below-inflation pay deal for the defence forces, but she appears to be moving further away from the Palmer United party – removing its logo from her website and having no contact with any of her fellow PUP senators.

The proposed committee will look at a long list of arguments regularly used by opponents of wind energy – including that it drives up power prices (effectively making this yet another inquiry into the RET), that it might have health consequences and that wind turbines pose a danger to birds and planes fighting fires or spraying crops.

A spokesman for Leyonhjelm confirmed a vote to set up the committee had been deferred until Monday because the government had said there could only be four Senate select committees, which meant an existing one would need to be abolished to make room for the new investigation.

As well as the inquiry into “Queensland administration” and the budget cuts, existing Senate select committees include an inquiry into health policy and administration and one into the national broadband network.

Leyonhjelm’s spokesman said the decision about which committee would be axed was “still being negotiated”.

Xenophon said he saw a “real distinction between the efficiency of solar compared with wind” and believed there was a “genuine concern the government hasn’t followed through on promises to do independent research” on the alleged health effects of windfarms.

Muir said: “I am supportive of the establishment of a select committee on wind turbines. I am a keen supporter of renewable energy, however, there are a lot of questions and concerns and claims from people living within the vicinity of windfarms. The establishment of the committee is a good way to get some clarity surrounding these claims.”

The idea that the RET is significantly pushing up prices has now been challenged by several sets of modelling.

ACIL Allen modelling done for the government’s own review shows the current RET target will increase the average household bill by an average of $54 a year between now and 2020, but will reduce bills by a similar annual amount over the following decade compared with what they would be if the RET were repealed. That modelling used assumptions highly unfavourable to renewable energy, including that coal and gas prices would remain almost unchanged until 2040.

Separate modelling for the Clean Energy Council by Roam Consulting – with different assumptions about gas prices – found that bills would be $50 a year lower by 2020 if the RET were retained.

Another modelling exercise, commissioned by three business groups from Deloitte, found household bills would rise by at most about $50 a year.

But the new committee will still look at the effect of wind power on household power prices.

While the PUP block stayed in place, the government did not have the numbers to change the RET, but Lambie has said she is worried about how it will affect her home state of Tasmania.
The Guardian

So, that’s what the wind industry cheer-squad thinks. Now, what about the Senators involved?

david leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm: itching to turn up the heat.


Why not start with the Terms of Reference put up by the cross-bench Senators Leyonhjelm, Madigan, Day, Xenophon; with the support of the Coalition, through their Deputy Government Whip in the Senate, STT Champion, WA Senator, Chris Back (see No 503 at page 9 here) as set out below:

No. 64

Notices of Motion

*503 Senators Leyonhjelm, Madigan, Day, Xenophon and Back:

To move –

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Wind Turbines be established to inquire into and report on the application of regulatory governance and economic impact of wind turbines by 24 June 2015, with particular reference to:

(a) the effect on household power prices, particularly households which receive no benefit from rooftop solar panels, and the merits of consumer subsidies for operators;

(b) how effective the Clean Energy Regulator is in performing its legislative responsibilities and whether there is a need to broaden those responsibilities;

(c) the role and capacity of the National Health and Medical Research Council in providing guidance to state and territory authorities;

(d) the implementation of planning processes in relation to wind farms, including the level of information available to prospective wind farm hosts;

(e) the adequacy of monitoring and compliance governance of wind farms;

(f) the application and integrity of national wind farm guidelines;

(g) the effect that wind towers have on fauna and aerial operations around turbines, including firefighting and crop management;

(h) the energy and emission input and output equations from whole-of-life operation of wind turbines; and

(i) any related matter.

(2) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, and 3 to be nominated by other parties and independent senators.

(3) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee ;and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(4) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair and deputy chair a member nominated by the minority parties and independent senators.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, has a casting vote.

(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

(11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

*Notice of motion altered on 17 November 2014 pursuant to standing order 7

xenophon madigan

STT Champions, Senators Nick Xenophon & John Madigan – SA’s favourite Greek is in the mask.


That this list has the wind industry, its parasites and mouthpieces like The Guardian choking on their skinny-soy-lattes is no surprise.

On the turbine noise and health score, the wind industry has – with the able help of Ian “Macca” Macfarlane – been able to stymie a raft of 7 major recommendations made by the Senate (with unanimous support of all parties, including the Greens) way back in June 2011:

Recommendation 1
2.44 The Committee considers that the noise standards adopted by the states and territories for the planning and operation of rural wind farms should include appropriate measures to calculate the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings.

Recommendation 2
2.58 The Committee recommends that the responsible authorities should ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and that the complaints processes should involve an independent arbitrator. State and local government agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permissions should be adequately resourced for this activity.

Recommendation 3
2.69 The Committee recommends that further consideration be given to the development of policy on separation criteria between residences and wind farm facilities.

Recommendation 4
2.101 The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health.

This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.

Recommendation 5
2.102 The Committee recommends that the NHMRC review of research should continue, with regular publication.

Recommendation 6
2.103 The Committee recommends that the National Acoustics Laboratories conduct a study and assessment of noise impacts of wind farms, including the impacts of infrasound.

Recommendation 7
3.99 The Committee recommends that the draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines be redrafted to include discussion of any adverse health effects and comments made by NHMRC regarding the revision of its 2010 public statement.

The Hansard setting out the recommendations for further research is available in pdf here.

That these recommendations have been on the books and lying idle for 3½ years is nothing short of a National disgrace. That people like Macca Macfarlane are bending over backwards to ensure the recommendations are never fully implemented is a political outrage.

Chris Back

STT Champion, Chris Back has never been afraid to get his hands dirty.


STT hears that all of the cross-benchers and Chris Back are hell-bent on seeing that – at the very least – the Federal government gets to work and satisfies its obligation to see the Senate’s (long-ignored) recommendations through to implementation.

And Macca’s efforts to stone-wall any attempt to scrutinise the wind industry fly in the face of Coalition policy and promises made by Tony Abbott – in the lead up to the last election and since – that there will be a multidisciplinary health inquiry (see our post here).

On the health topic, the kicker in the Terms of Reference is 1(c) which targets: “the role and capacity of the National Health and Medical Research Council in providing guidance to state and territory authorities”.

The (only very recently and reluctantly disclosed) commercial conflicts of interest among those “advising” the NHMRC – leave a “smell” surrounding the NHMRC’s woeful “work” that’ll outlast religion (see our post here).

The NHMRC have done nothing more than a couple of half-baked literature reviews that ignored the critical and highly relevant work done by Neil Kelley & Co (see our posts here and here) – but what would America’s top rocket scientists know, hey? (see our posts here and here). And otherwise created a smoke-screen for the wind industry: in short, the NHMRC ought to be ashamed of itself (see our posts here and here).

The Terms of Reference mean that – for the first time – the spotlight will shine on the NHMRC and its unseemly connections with the wind industry, its parasites and academic barrackers. What’s that they say about sunlight being the best of disinfectants?

The same goes for the Clean Energy Regulator (see Term of Reference 1(b)) and its malign indifference to “performing its legislative responsibilities”. Bombarded with evidence of non-complying wind farms by Senators John Madigan and Chris Back, the CER steadfastly refuses to remove their entitlement to receive Renewable Energy Certificates (worth $millions) – and, instead, spends its time protecting the wind industry from any scrutiny at all. One recent response by Chloe Munro (from the CER) to the issue of wind power outfits engaged in REC fraud (see our post here) says it all, really:

“I would comment that fraud under the renewable energy target is not actually fraud against the Commonwealth but it is a fraud against the customers of those entities.”

Comforting to know that the CER thinks REC fraud by wind power outfits isn’t a problem worth pursuing because it says it’s “not actually fraud against the Commonwealth”. After all it’s not costing the CER anything: on the contrary, the CER deducts a levy from every REC it issues, so that it has a direct financial interest in turning a blind eye to REC fraud.

No, it’s only struggling power consumers – cash-strapped families and businesses trying to keep their heads above water – that are being ripped off as a result of the CER’s indifference. Ahhh, that makes it so much better.

John Madigan and Chris Back have been frustrated beyond belief by the CER’s high-handed indifference (some might call it “arrogance”) to its task. Now, they (and other Senators) will get a chance in this inquiry to really turn up the heat on the CER’s well-disciplined efforts to cover up wholesale REC fraud by wind power outfits, like Acciona at Waubra; and others, elsewhere.

The Terms of Reference have something for everyone – not just those that want a long-overdue, thorough health inquiry (that excludes the NHMRC and the wind industry plants and barrackers that infiltrated it); not just those that want 3½ year-old Senate recommendations finally put into effect, as promised; and not just those that want the CER to do its job and pull the plug on wind power outfits engaged in wholesale REC fraud (see our post here).


This time around the inquiry will cut to the chase and debunk the central, endlessly repeated lie that wind power reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector with Term of Reference 1(h) which throws a light on: “the energy and emission input and output equations from whole-of-life operation of wind turbines”.

In Australia, the central object of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is for “renewable” energy to “reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector” (see s3). But, somewhere along the way, what was a CO2 abatement scheme became an industry subsidy scheme which is nothing short of “corporate welfare on steroids” (see our post here).

At no point since that legislation took effect over 13 years ago has the wind industry provided any actual proof that it has in fact reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. When we talk about “proof” we’re not talking about smoke and mirrors “modelling” based on long-term average wind farm output – which ignores the extra gas and coal being burnt (and wasted) in order to balance the grid to account for wild fluctuations in wind power output (see our post here); and to maintain additional “spinning reserve” (see our post here) to account for complete collapses in wind power output – as seen in this post.

As we have pointed out just once or twice – the need for 100% of wind power capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources means that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here and here and here and here and here and here).

E.ON operates numerous transmission grids in Germany and, therefore, has the unenviable task of being forced to integrate the wildly fluctuating and unpredictable output from wind power generators, while trying to keep the German grid from collapsing (E.ON sets out a number of the headaches caused by intermittent wind power in the Summary of this paper at page 4). Dealing with the fantasy that wind power is an alternative to conventional generation sources, E.ON says:

“Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online [and burning fuel] in order to guarantee power supply at all times.”

STT is happy to go all out and say that in Australia wind power requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by conventional generation sources. As just one recent example, on 3 consecutive days (20, 21 and 22 July 2014) the total output from all of the wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (total capacity of 2,952 MW – and spread over 4 states, SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW) was a derisory 20 MW (or 0.67% of installed capacity) for hours on end (see our post here). The 99.33% of wind power output that went AWOL for hours (at various times, 3 days straight) was, instead, all supplied by conventional generators; the vast bulk of which came from coal and gas plants, with the balance coming from hydro.

For wind power to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector it has be a true “substitute” for conventional generation sources. Because it can’t be delivered “on-demand” (can’t be stored) and is only “available” at crazy, random intervals (if at all) wind power will never be a substitute for conventional generation sources (see our posts here and here).

Perhaps the reason that the wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in Australia’s electricity sector is simply because it can’t.

Running counter to wind industry claims about wind power abating CO2 emissions, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see our post here; this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; this American article and this Dutch study here).

Now – with the Senate applying a well-directed blow-torch to the ONLY “justification” for the $billions in subsidies filched from unwitting power consumers – the wind industry will have to put up or shut up.

So, too, with the wild and unsubstantiated claims made by the wind industry and its parasites about wind power lowering retail power prices – the target of Term of Reference 1(a), which will scrutinise: “the effect on household power prices, particularly households which receive no benefit from rooftop solar panels, and the merits of consumer subsidies for operators”.

That opens the way for a thorough investigation into the effect of the long-term Power Purchase Agreements struck between wind power outfits and retailers – and the REC tax paid by all power consumers – on retail prices being paid now and in future as the LRET target heads to its (current) annual 41,000 GWh target, set to run from 2020-2031.

STT predicts that wind power outfits will be called on to produce their “commercial-in-confidence” PPAs (which they guard with their lives and never, ever mention) and to explain just how setting a fixed and guaranteed price 3-4 times the price of conventional power generation sources lowers retail power prices (see our post here).

And – on the same page – these boys will need to explain how walloping power consumers with another $50 billion in REC tax – set to be directed to wind power outfits under the LRET over the next 17 years – could possibly result in lower retail power prices (see our posts here and here).

STT predicts a lot of squirming wind industry witnesses, quite a bit of wind industry double-speak and gobbledygook; and a resort by its boffins to “Magic Pudding” economics (see our posts here and here).

This inquiry has been a long time coming, but good things come to those with patience and right on their sides.

Clive and his  PUPettes, take note - there are cheaper ways of abating carbon and saving job.

With a little help from the PUPs & Ricky Muir – a proper inquiry, at long last.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. It sounds a silly question I know but can anyone explain just what it is that the Clean Energy Regulator is supposed to regulate?

  2. Wind farms are net consumers of electricity if measured over one year. Same as an appliance. That does not count the energy to build and remove them. See Val Martin Ireland you tube Myth about wind energy

  3. Agree, it is, at least, a start. Proves we are not alone and some sincere politicians do understand.

    Would like to see an emphasis on property saleability and reduced values. Guess that comes under “any other matters”.

    The adverse social impact of becoming prisoners on unsaleable rural properties for families, especially older Australians, are enormous for the people involved and the wider community generally. This issue requires an inquiry in its own right.

    I am heartened by those involved, that is, if the inquiry goes ahead. They are hard working politicians who are very well informed on all of the issues.

  4. Martin Hayles, Curramulka says:

    Well,well,well STT.
    You have outdone yourself on this one.

    As you are aware, it has taken a great deal of effort from a large number of people, many victims, to get to this stage where the Senate appear to be resolute, with more than a cursory glimpse, to ascertain the real health, social and economic effects that is the disaster of the Wind industry.

    It is with disbelief that I have witnessed none of the recommendations directed to the government of the day by the NHMRC carried out.

    One can only surmise that powerful outside influence, which has the ability to reap billions of dollars from the electricity consumer, has until now, won the day.
    To us in the know it is obviously a corruption of process, but as we have witnessed, the average punter on the street has no idea.

    If you were to ask the average ignorant punter if they want to take action to stop global warming, and explain to them that the cause is excessive man-made production of CO2, and dress it up as ‘Carbon” and show the big stacks of a coal powered generation facility which is really steam ie. water vapour, and mislead by disingenuity, the outcome is predictable.

    Most people do not want to show their ignorance and if a leading question appears to be within the realms of possibility, will agree.
    It is ‘basic ego’ 101.

    Ahhhhhh, but now thanks to STT and a myriad of other like-minded organisations world wide, and the Waubra Foundation, not to mention the Heartland Farmers on Yorke Peninsula, things are changing.

    It is with fascination that I witness the sanctimonious squealing from the extreme left (the greens), the socialist/communist conspirators, Lee Rhiannon, Milne, Bob Brown, Sarah Hanson-Young and the more mainstream left, through the federal and state Labor party.

    We, the seekers-of-truth, know that the financial side of the Labor Party, the union movement are heavily invested in the wind industry to the tune of Billions.
    We have ‘ex’, but they are never in reality ‘ex’ union supremo Gary Weaven, in charge of Industry Management Funds, which is the financier of Pacific Hydro.
    The funds that finance Pacific Hydro are coming directly from the pocket of the “working class man”

    The cynicism of Weaven and recently appointed board member, and ex federal Labor climate change minister Greg Combet is astounding.
    These very intelligent ‘clowns’ realise the average working class man has neither the time, inclination, nor the wherewithal to ask some serious questions about where their money, their long-term retirement funds are going.

    I suspect the Labor and union movement are squealing so much recently because they had previously believed they were on to an ever-giving motza, but they did not count on the likes of me and STT, the Callous Wind and the Heartland Farmers and so many like-minded bodies.

    Ultimately, if no more wind farm abominations are created and the RET is lessened, the price of the REC will never increase to the $90 per Megawatt/hour by 2020 the industry and more importantly the FINANCIERS are/were counting on.
    Isn’t it wonderful that the parasites thought it was all going to pan out in their favour and f%#k the rest of us.

    Now, to bring this a little closer to home.
    I am a farmer on Yorke Peninsula, South Australia.
    I was offered turbines, but refused on principle.
    Unfortunately my neighbours only had visions of easy coin.
    We have had difficult, if any relationships, since them ‘selling their soul’

    I bring to your attention a creature by the name of Terry Kallis.
    It would be inappropriate to question the honesty of the man, and I use the term “man” somewhat tentatively, as it certainly does not register with the definition that I have led my life.

    Terry (I like to think of him as Ted) is the man (there I go again) who after the approach by local John McFarlane, Sandilands farmer (for want of a better term…..perhaps wannabe ‘Esquire’) decided to create the major wind farm project named ‘Ceres’.

    Unfortunately for Ted (apparently in Greek means “Gods gift”) he gave away much of his ‘strategy’ in convincing the locals to roll with him, by his experience in creating the Starfish Hill wind farm near the area where one captures the ferry to the delightful Kangaroo Island.
    May I add, Kangaroo Island is a designated Turbine Free Zone.
    Lucky bastards.

    I went to the first ever meeting with Little Ted and I walked away thinking this boy was a shyster.
    I never went to another one.
    Little boy Ted did attempt to contact me by phone on two separate occasions and then made contact with my elderly father, but on realisation that it would not be on his terms, was never heard from again.

    Little Ted Kallis is regularly after tax-payer funded/subsidised business ventures.

    His hot-rocks project PETRATHERM is broke. Today it is trading at 0.004 dollars (I didn’t realise you could trade so low).
    His ruthlessness is not to be confused with stupidity.
    One must give him credit.
    He he has the smarts of a fox.
    He will wait for a dark windy night before he digs his way into the chicken coop and makes away with his bounty, but he is not clever enough to hide where he has been and how he got there.

    He told some of us who are his opponents that it was a done deal.
    His confidence was at such a high level that one must wonder if he had a free pass into parliament house?
    We know through Crown Development Status approval that Ceres was always a done deal.
    How can Ceres be described as critical infrastructure when it can never produce Base Load power?

    The parasitical neighbours that surround my farm have always been assured by little Ted that Ceres is a certainty.

    Justice will prevail, and the ones who have taken advantage of good people’s good nature will be held to account

  5. Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    About time we had one of these over here!

  6. David Mortimer says:

    Perhaps I am wrong, but a Senate Select Committee is a political instrument and can only produce a political result wherein so called experts can lie blatantly and get away with it particularly in relation to human health issues. We have already seen how victims are constantly blamed for their condition and labelled Nimby or Nocebo by both politicians who should know better and government departments with a direct link to the wind industry.

    What we really need is the promised but never delivered independent, multi discipline clinical testing which is truly able to establish the irrefutable facts relating to human health.
    I for one can not wait for such truly science based evidence.
    The senate committee is not enough, but at least it is a start (or just another delaying tactic?)

    • Spot on David Mortimer.

      What is especially interesting is the international Acoustics industry (with some notable exceptional individuals) sitting on their microphones. They have bent over so far for Big Wind and the EPA, they have lost sight of their professional ethical code and duty of care. Their priority is their bulging wallets and the self-gratification integral to Big Wind’s delusional ‘saving the planet’.

      Some acousticians of course are employed in the EPAs, colluding with the wind industry to set meaningless standards, and fictitious compliance methodology. One was heard during conversation at a public meeting in South Australia to use the analogy of the EPA with respect to the wind industry that ” if you are developing a road, you are not going to put barriers in front of the bulldozers”. Protection? Yes, for Industry, stuff the citizens.

      They are for the most part acoustic mercenaries, guns for hire to sprout whatever their Industrial Wind masters and political friends want to hear, and otherwise suppressing data. Transparency of their industry and Wind industry acoustic and wind data is non existent. Lies and obfuscation are the norm.

      One could suggest they check their professional indemnity policies- deception and deceit/manipulation and knowingly misrepresenting of data and modelling is not covered.
      And to be sure, their Wind Industry mates are not going to support them when the science is enabled to flourish unfettered.

      But hey, Kelley did the science in the 1980’s- and the adverse human impacts from acoustic pollution and wind turbines have been ignored ever since. But the breeze is shifting…

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

%d bloggers like this: