Colourblind State, Together New Zealand, Treatygate

Together New Zealand: an inclusive identity

This is my idea of a brand identity which would unite New Zealanders under one multiracial banner.

My inspiration for the design (rendered by Rachel Cunliffe to a suggestion from my friend Perry) was the team huddle of the Silver Ferns netball team.

Inspiration for the logo: the Silver Ferns team huddle.

Now there’s no doubt our similarly multiracial All Blacks are the ultimate world model of excellent sporting performance.

But the Silver Ferns have always been the ultimate in excellent sportsmanship and behaviour, both on and off the court — the perfect ambassadors for our country.

(When was the last time you opened a newspaper to a story about ‘Former Silver Fern hits husband’ or ‘Ex-Silver Fern found drunk in gutter’? I don’t think it’s ever happened.)

This year’s squad list includes Maori names Tutaia and Te Huinga Reo (Selby-Rickit), Pacific names (correct me if I’m wrong, girls) Latu and Naoupu, Europeans Grant, Harrison and Williams, and our pet South African giraffes van Dyk and de Bruin.

And of course coach Waimarama Taumanu is Maori.

All Blacks all races

Same on the rugby field, where a Maori halfback (Aaron Smith or Piri Weepu) passes to British New Zealander Dan Carter, who passes to Samoan New Zealander Ma’a Nonu, who passes to British New Zealander Conrad (and sometimes Ben) Smith, who flicks it on to Samoan New Zealander Julian Savea, or to Israel Dagg (what’s he: Jewish? Maori? Who cares!)

And how can we forget those wonderful Tongan and Fijian wingers Johah Lomu and Josefata Rokocoko?

Race is irrelevant in our star sports teams. Should it not also be so in our nation as a whole?

I’m off to Toast Martinborough to relax after a busy week, and to think about my next move.

Potential party

My inclination is to form an organisation called Together New Zealand, and do it in such a way that it could quickly be converted into a political party.

I am quite relaxed about who leads the organisation, and whether I am simply the catalyst or something more.

That, I imagine, will be determined by the calibre of people who step forward.

My next priority will be to appeal to serious funders, now that we have a few runs on the board.

This week’s four meetings were a testing of the water, to see what level of support I could get just from this blog and my email network.

(I also ran one small ad on the letters page in Tauranga.)

Blog booming

Blog traffic has grown tenfold in recent months, from around 200 visits a day to over 2000.

I’m certainly not at Kiwiblog or Whaleoil levels, but I’m pleased that interest is clearly on the rise.

Now: what are your thoughts about the Together New Zealand identity?

For my part, I see Treatygate as a strong short-term brand for clearing the road block that is the Treaty industry, and Together New Zealand as the positive long-term brand for focusing on the road.

634 thoughts on “Together New Zealand: an inclusive identity

  1. I am one who doesn’t want this blog sidetracked away from the central point, but I must say NN your information about Second Lieutenant Ngarimu is quite incorrect. He was killed at the battle of Tebaga Gap (posthumous VC). 2 weeks after that, the Maoris were led at the Battle of Takrouna by Sergeant ManahI (DCM). Your story about Maoris slitting POW throats is bollocks, and if true would have been a war crime requiring court martial, and would certainly be nothing to crow about. Fortunately, it is not true. Also: the Maori Battalion was formed in late1939 so did not serve in WW1. It was formed at the urging of Sir Apirana Ngata – for whom you have little time – and 2 other Maori MPs. Where on earth do you get your “information” from, and what is your problem with the Dutch, about whom you clearly know very little.

  2. NN,
    Here we go, bring up the standard argument, if we do not agree with your version of history we are all racists. How pathetic.

    1. JP you’re right about Ngarimu, but wrong about the incident that took place on the summit of Takrouna it was widely reported in the 1990’s. Go check it out for yourself. I use the term ‘Maori Battalion’ when I refer to the Maori Pioneer Battalion of WW1.

  3. NN. Quote; “I have dealt with you as politely as I can,”

    You have defined racism (incorrectly) as prejudice against people because of the colour of their skin. Now we can all see why.

    Your totally unjustified rants against the Dutch were completely uncalled for and your pseudo-intellectual mask has slipped to reveal a racist attitude of the lowest order, demeaning of the decent part-Maoris of whom there are many.

    While you are implanting children in your tutorial capacity with your one-eyed view of humanity you are destroying their freedom of thought and sentencing them to a future of hatred and a sense of inferiority.

    The part-Maori people will never progress until they break free of the shackles of tribalism – and “Maoridom” will forever be a misnomer, as each tribe couldn’t care less what others received, as long as it wasn’t more than they got themselves.

    The next barrier for “your people” to break through is the lie of heredity; the refusal to acknowledge their true mixed ancestral roots and to stop living in a world of self-deception.
    Until part-Maori are honest with themselves they will never be able to comprehend the optimum ideal for any nation (and the world) of equal rights for all.

    The above comments are with reference to yourself and others who share your hatred for other racial groups. They are not directed at the majority of part-Maori who are more socially advanced.
    My use of the term part-Maori is not intended as an insult but as a genetic fact – I will always elevate truth above racial propitiation.

    And I am glad that my kids went to school without encountering teachers with views such as those that you propound.

    1. Mitch, you’re forgetting one thing Mike Kuipers insulted me first. That’s when I decided to remove the gloves and go for the jugular.

      So, part-Maori is used by you as a genetic fact. Then it must be alright for me to use the term part-spaceman as a genetic fact when referring to you and your buddies on this site.

      JA: Ngamoko, if those people were indeed descended from spacemen, then yes, that would be absolutely correct.

      Why do you have such a problem with factual description?

      I am pleased you concede that today’s Maori are a religion, rather than a race. That is my view, too.

      Racially, many, if not most, of today’s Maori are more Pakeha than Maori.

      (Such as Sir Howard Morrison, who was 85% Scottish, and Sir Steven O’Regan who is 15/16ths Irish.)

      That is not an insult. That is a fact.

      These people choose, with great sincerity no doubt, to practise Maoritanga, just as Catholics choose to practise Catholicism, and Muslims choose to practise Islam.

      There is nothing whatever wrong with that.

      There is nothing wrong with people practising whatever religious or cultural habits they so choose (as long as it doesn’t hurt others).

      What is wrong is for them to demand other people’s money for it.

      What is very wrong is to pretend they are fully Maori for the purposes of compensation, when they are, in fact, part-Maori – and often a very small part.

      There is nothing racist about saying that.

      But there’s plenty racist about your condemnation of the Dutch, whose hard-working, law-abiding immigrants have made an outstanding contribution to New Zealand society.

  4. NN, the little information available that mentions any untoward events on the summit of Takrouna after its capture are seen as nothing more than unfounded rumour. For example, historian Joseph Cody describes how, on a number of occasions during the action at Takrouna, prisoners were taken according to the conventions of the time. At the time the citation for the VC for Sgt. Manahi was written, the officers involved had full knowledge of the action, including the fierce fighting to hold the pinnacle, and they signed it and forwarded it to London within a few weeks. As Sir Charles Bennett put it, ‘we all know that Manahi would not have been recommended for a Victoria Cross in the first place if it was thought by his superior officers that he was guilty of a grave misdemeanour’. The citation for the DCM notes the ‘fierce hand-to-hand fighting’. We are satisfied that the speculation and rumour arose later and were not a factor in the decision to change the VC recommendation to a DCM.

    Yes, there was a loosely formed Maori Pioneer Battalion during WW1 but it was never full strength, and did not go on to become the (28th) Maori Battalion, although I believe it partly inspired its creation.

    1. There was a story that circulated for years and was reported in the NZ Hearld, Weekend edition in the 1990’s about an incident that took place during the fierce fighting at Takrouna. The story went like this, a group of wounded B Coy soldiers were sheltering in a shed, when an Italian soldier lobbed a grenade inside killing most of the them. The survivors reported the incident to their comrades who then demanded that ‘utu’ be taken because up until that moment the fighting had been conducted within the rules of war as laid down by the Geneva Conventions. According to the story the gloves came off and it was decided that ‘no prisoners were to be taken alive’.

  5. NN. By all means use the term part-spaceman when referring to me.
    I got over rising to the bait of name calling quite early in life and find your attempts to get a reaction to be rather amusing.
    Who knows – the whole planet may have been seeded from outer space and we may all be part-spacemen – you included.

    However I would prefer that you re-adopt your “intelligent” role for the sake of sensible discussion.

  6. Ngamoko: see various italicised comments after your comments above.

    I am happy to be known as part-English, part-Scottish, part-Irish and part-Polish Jewish.

    But I don’t really care about any of that.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’m all-New Zealander.

  7. Story line:
    The future of NZ. A tongue-in-cheek look at NZ’s future should the Treaty of Waitangi become part of a new constitution.

    Treaty of Waitangi becomes entrenched in a NZ constitution and apartheid accepted as official government policy.
    Majority of NZ’ers refuse to live under such a system and mass exodus to Australia begins.
    Productive businesses move offshore and NZ economy dwindles rapidly.
    Native tribes are unable to agree on who is the new leader and tribal warfare breaks out.
    Northern tribe victorious from sheer weight of numbers,
    Titiwhai Harawera pronounced Queen and Hone Harawera becomes Supreme Exalted Omnipotent Grand Master and Protector of Taonga (money).
    Dissenters are to be given a fair hearing by the Waitangi Tribunal and then executed.
    Waitangi becomes new capital of Aotearoa.
    Mention of Waitaha, Moriori or part-Maori punishable by death.
    Parents ordered to teach “tangata whenua” as baby’s first words.
    Survivors of remaining tribes directed to work under appointed masters on ex-pakeha farms without pay for the glory of the Maori nation.
    Hospitals close from lack of trained staff and withdrawal of funding. Traditional healing becomes the new health system.
    Tuku Morgan ordered to refund cost of silk underpants.
    Closure of WINZ offices – no longer required as slavery ensures full employment.
    Hone, The Illustrious and Supreme Commander,forms alliance with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who advises that all remaining non-Maoris must be run off their land or killed, whichever is easier.
    United Nations approached with demand for emergency funding as pakeha gravy train no longer exists.
    Survivors of minor tribes to be systematically slaughtered to provide urgently required food for northern overlords.
    Pakeha laws abolished and “might is right” and “utu” adopted.
    English language forbidden, and mathematics and science no longer taught on maraes to enable essential education in kapa haka studies.
    Inability to communicate with other nations (as they refuse to adopt Maori as the international language) results in airline closures.
    Immigration banned to preserve the purity of the Maori race.
    Total isolation of Aotearoa to be rigidly enforced to guarantee eternal Maori ownership of Earth, Wind, Air and Fire.
    The cycle will then be completed.
    Exit stage right.

    Scenario 2
    (The future of NZ from a non-racist point of view.)

    Political parties advocating equal rights sweep into power.
    Commission of enquiry conducts an investigation into Waitangi Tribunal decisions and individual members prosecuted.
    Waitangi Tribunal abolished.
    Maori seats abolished.
    True history of NZ reinstated in all schools.
    Embargoed sites re-opened for investigation by international archaeologists and historians and findings made public.
    Ditto for “Littlewood Treaty.”
    Privy Council reinstated as guardians against internal corruption.
    All Treaty documents donated to national museum as curiosities for future generations.
    Equal rights to become a reality.


  8. I have been challenged to produce the letter that Dr. Phil Parkinson sent to me, dated the 24th of December, 2003 regarding his (then) view as to the significance of the Littlewood Treaty document.

    It must be remembered that Dr. Parkinson’s candid and open admissions were made to an unthreatening member of the public who was making a simple research enquiry.

    Dr. Parkinson could never have conceived of the repercussions and volatile discussion that would so soon, thereafter, arise in the public arena concerning the document found by the Littlewood family in 1989.

    The grievance-industry aligned historians had, very effectively, put the Littlewood document (the Final English Draft of the Treaty of Waitangi) to bed in 1992, and had successfully suppressed almost all mention of it for the ensuing 11-years.

    Upon receipt of Dr. Parkinson’s letter, I wrote up a large body of accumulated evidence, which I submitted to Investigate magazine.

    Ian Wishart, editor,then wrote a powerful article, which appeared in his January 2004 release issue of the magazine.

    Within 3 weeks of that, on January 27th 2004, Dr. Don Brash gave his astonishing speech at Orewa, revealing to New Zealanders (for the first time in years) that we were all EQUAL (as affirmed under the Treaty of Waitangi).

    On the 18th of March, 2004, closely following on the heels of Dr. Brash’s speech at Orewa, the Hon. Winston Peters gave an address in Parliament concerning the status of the Littlewood document.

    The following morning, The New Zealand Herald (Bay of Plenty issue) reported the following:

    ‘Mr. Peters said he wanted a commission to “address the controversial subject of exactly which version of the Treaty of Waitangi is official. The last English version has the most credibility as it was set out to include all New Zealanders.”

    He was referring to what is known as the “Littlewood” version of the treaty which is claimed to be the final English draft from which the Maori version was translated.’

    Significantly, by the Herald’s second edition that morning, all of Winston’s references to the “Littlewood Treaty” in his parliamentary speech, were removed.

    The letter containing Dr. Parkinson’s 2003 sentiments, based upon all historical evidence and documentation available to him, is an officially-released letter bearing an Alexander Turnbull Library reference number.

    It should, therefore, be available, on request, to any member of the public who desires a copy.

    Here it is in full:

    25507 Doutre

    AT 13/19/4

    24 December 2003

    Martin Doutre

    Dear Mr Doutre


    Dr Claudia Orange referred to me your correspondence with her over the so-called ‘Littlewood document’ as I have also studied the document and the file of papers associated with it (Archives New Zealand, 4/1/18).

    For several years I have been investigating the provenance and handwriting of official documents relating to the period 1830 to 1845, as well as missionary correspondence of that period.

    I first learned of the Littlewood document from Dr Orange on 31 March 2000, but the document was studied by Dr Donald Loveridge shortly after it was rediscovered in 1992.

    Dr Loveridge, in a letter of 21 September 1992 – and which it appears you may have seen – was of the opinion that the Littlewood text was “virtually identical in all respects” to a translation (i.e. English from a Maori original) which was enclosed by James Reddy Clendon in his despatch no. 6, dated 20 February 1840, to the US Secretary of State, together with copies of Hobson’s printed proclamations of 30 January 1840 and Colenso’s printing of the Treaty of Waitangi (which was printed on 17 February).

    It appears that the similarity between these two documents was first noted by Dr Hank Driessen of Archives New Zealand.

    The ‘Maori original’ here referred to is of course Colenso’s printed text.

    The only significant difference between the Littlewood text and the Clendon copy of that text is the alteration of the date from 4 February (the date the scribe of the Littlewood document wrote it) and the date supplied by Clendon, the 6th February, taken from the printed document.

    Unfortunately, and possibly because of the poor quality of the photocopy he was working from, Dr Loveridge did not identify the scribe of the Littlewood document.

    When I was shown it, in September 2000, it was at once evident to me (as I told Christel McClare of Archives New Zealand, at the time) that the Littlewood document was in the handwriting of James Busby.

    It is not, of course, either a draft of the Treaty (of which there are two extant in Busby’s own hand) nor a copy of the official back translation (from the Maori text back into English) which was authenticated by Henry Williams before being sent off by Hobson to Gipps.

    In this I agree with Dr Loveridge.

    Study of other documents in Clendon’s hand, however, provides a solution to the mystery.

    Clendon wanted to get an authenticated copy of the English text of the treaty for the United States government, but he was unable to obtain one – for rather obvious reasons, it was a secret English text until published officially.

    While the back translation was sent to Gipps (“Her Majesty Victoria . . .”) and this text was also used for the Manukau Heads signed sheet of the Treaty, and for a bilingual copy of the document was later sent to London, where it remains, all the other copies available were in Maori only, including the 200 printed copies produced by Colenso as an incentive for other chiefs to cede sovereignty.

    Clendon gathered several English texts (including Busby’s) as approximations of what the English text means.

    These remain among his papers at Auckland Public Library.

    The opening words of one of these copies are “Victoria the Queen of England in her merciful regard…”

    (unknown scribe’s text in the Clendon House papers, Auckland Public Library NZMS 705, Box 1, bundle no. 1, no. 1)

    but another begins “Victoria, Queen of England, with her affectionate remembrance to the chiefs…”

    (Gordon Brown’s text in the Clendon House papers, Auckland Public Library NZMS 705 Box 1, bundle no. 1, no. 8).

    Busby’s version (i.e. Littlewood’s document) starts “Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs . . .” and this is the one Clendon chose to send with his despatch no. 6.

    In his despatch no. 7 (dated July 1840), he forwarded his own transcript of what he thought was the official text in English, which he transcribed from a document held by the then Acting Colonial Secretary, J. S. Freeman.

    But Clendon was mistaken, for this text does not duplicate the official text sent to Gipps by Hobson on 6 February.

    The Clendon text in despatch no. 7 begins “Her most gracious Majesty…”

    and it is in Clendon’s writing, scientifically authenticated by forensic experts at the Police, earlier this year.

    Two further copies of the “Her most gracious Majesty…” text have also been located in New Zealand.

    The handwriting of one of them is almost certainly authenticated, but I will not divulge the conjectured identity of the scribe pending further forensic data, but the third copy is still not firmly authenticated – although I suspect that a little more evidence will settle that question too.

    The three “Her most gracious Majesty . . .” texts are very probably duplicates of the missing final draft text in English which was given to Henry Williams to translate on 4 February, discussed between Williams, Hobson, Busby and others on the 5th, and copied anew in Maori by Taylor for the meeting on the 6th.

    So where does the Littlewood text fit in to this?

    We know from Colenso’s account of the proceedings at Waitangi, that on the 5th Hobson read out a text of the Treaty in English and that this was translated phrase by phrase by Williams.

    Some of the bystanders objected that Williams’ translation did not fairly represent what Hobson had said.

    Although nothing can be proven I think that what Hobson read was not the “Her most gracious Majesty . . .” text (which has a rather stiff and formal preamble) but rather the simpler and less formal Littlewood one “Her Majesty Victoria . . .” which in tone addresses the British listeners, rather than the Maori.

    Hence the Littlewood text says “…seeing that many of her majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, And that it is desirable for their protection as well as protection of the natives to establish a form of government among them.”

    Some people have made much of the absence of the words ‘lands and estates, forests and fisheries and other properties’ in the Littlewood document.

    However, the expressions it uses “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property…” is just as effective, only less wordy than that in the official English text; the point is that all property is confirmed, of whatever kind, so it is unnecessary to go into details about forests, fisheries, mineral rights or anything else.

    Dr Orange, in a document of 5 October 1992, considered that Dr Loveridge was “probably correct” in deducing that the Littlewood document was “a translation of the Maori treaty” but what Loveridge said was that the “translation from the native document” and “the Maori version on which it was based” both bore the date of 6 February (rather than 4 February).

    But this is not really satisfactory.

    The Busby/Littlewood document of 4 February is not a translation of the Maori text of the treaty because that translation was written on 5 February, by Henry Williams.

    Clendon certainly got his Maori text from the printed copies produced by Colenso and his task was to match up the printed Maori text with the recollected English text as read by Hobson.

    Unable to get the official text (as provided by Hobson to Gipps) Clendon approached Busby, who provided the Busby/Littlewood text.

    Clendon and Busby were both appointed as magistrates by Hobson in 1841.

    Littlewood practiced in law at Auckland may have obtained his document from Clendon was both were active in Auckland in 1841-42.

    In your letter of 16 November to Dr Orange you expressed your amazement that nobody recognised that the scribe of the Littlewood document was Busby, and it certainly puzzled me, also, that this point was not picked up, as far as I know, until I pointed it out in September 2000.

    But there are rather few people who can now scientifically identify 19th century handwriting.

    I know from my own experience with unsigned annotations on documents of the 1820s to 1850s that I have sometimes made misattributions; it is a skill that one develops with experience.

    The departure of staff some of the senior staff with relevant expertise at Archives New Zealand during the last decade left has a gap.

    You also expressed interest in the associations of Henry Littlewood.

    Very little is known of him.

    He appears to have been at the Bay of Islands in 1838.

    The situation in which he came to prominence was as defence counsel for Maketu during his trial for murder in 1842 (Hodder to Littlewood, 14 September 1992 in the Littlewood file at Archives New Zealand, 4/1/189).

    The Alexander Turnbull Library has no further information about him, apart from a notice of his death, which occurred at Auckland on 5 September 1864, aged 52 (Australian and New Zealand Gazette no. 687 (24 December 1864) p. 415.

    Yours Sincerely

    Dr Phil Parkinson
    Librarian, Research Centre

  9. Well, that puts paid to Nigamoko Nikora’s desperate but wholly one-eyed cherry-picking of “facts” from various sources in his attempt to discredit everyone who does not agree with his inaccurate version of histrorical events. Good enough for me – thanks to Mr Doutre for posting this letter.

  10. For those who may not have seen it, here is a link to the Investigate March 2012 expose into the Tribunal’s practices:

    A brief excerpt from that investigation:

    ” In a 1996 article in the Christchurch Star, respected media commentator Brian Priestley, having attended several sessions, concluded: “it would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.” Mr. Priestley noted that the there was no cross-examination; that witnesses were treated with sympathetic deference; and that those representing the Crown “seemed equally anxious not to offend’. Stating that in three months he was not asked a single intelligent question, he concluded that he should have resigned, as he was not “a one-eyed supporter of causes”… “

  11. So Phil Parkinson says in this letter that Littlewood is not a back translation and is most probably the version that Hobson read out to the assembled Maoris. Seems pretty clear to me that the Littlewood document along with the Maori Tiriti are the documents that should be used.

  12. What kind of historians do we have in this country?

    A document from 4th February 1840 goes missing; a document from 4th February 1840 is found and proven to be genuine.

    Historians flap and say “This can’t be the one.” This must be a copy.” “This must have a wrong date on it.”

    Why are all of their efforts aimed at discrediting what anyone of even meagre intelligence knows must be the missing document?

    Many years ago a Doctor named Galen was accepted as the greatest medical authority. His theory was that the blood in a human body was tidal, flowing up and down the body.

    No one questioned him because he was an (hushed tones) “authority”.

    Another Doctor named Harvey proposed the idea that blood was pumped from the heart and was thus circulated around the body.

    One other physician when asked for his opinion on the new theory replied, “I would rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey.”

    As this example shows, professionals are desperate to be accepted by their peers and so avoid stating opinions that may fly in the face of (hushed tones again) ‘authority’.

    I would say that this is the state of our present crop of historians who are afraid to do anything but toe the line of political correctness.

    A string of letters after one’s name is no guarantee of either honesty or integrity.

  13. MM said; “A string of letters after one’s name is no guarantee of either honesty or integrity”. How right you are Mitch and I would also go so far as to say it is also no guarantee that the person actually knows all they think they do about any given subject. Many moons ago I saw first-hand evidence of this when I worked with a highly qualified individual who was actually not very good his job. Since then I have treated people’s (so-called) qualifications with caution, preferring to observe the proof of the pudding, so to speak.

    You don’t need to be a geologist to strike gold.

  14. Yes and as a very wise old man once explained to me ….. the definition of an “expert” ?
    “ex” / “X” is an unknown quantity
    “spurt” is a drip under pressure

  15. Not my definition JP ….. as I said, he was a very wise old man and he had seen a lot of life and the world …. he passed-on that knowledge to me 30 years ago ….. so these “experts” have obviously been around and been easily identifiable for a very long time !!!

  16. Thanks for the link Peter C.

    The article was refreshingly more elequent than I could possibly muster, at this stage any way.

  17. For those of you who may not have seen this.
    Here is the text of a letter to a newspaper earlier this year from a Waitaha lady, dated 16/03/2012.

    Waitaha heritage.
    “Through your newspaper, I would like to express the following:
    I am Waitaha: Waitaha are Christian people: we are not Maori: We are the Mana Whenua of Aotearoa, the First Blood: we have been here for thousands of years, we have been relentlessly torn from our land, our sacred mother Papatuanuku. We have been denounced, silenced, and ignored, first by the warrior man, then by the Crown and successive governments. This is still happening to us. We have been misrepresented and misinterpreted. Only when the truth is honoured can there be peace on earth.”
    Megan Armour

  18. John , read in one of the above about ” the meeting last night was great” – how does one get to contact with you people ona face to face basis. How do I find out when you have a meeting so I can attend.I have been looking for an “organisation” like this for years.

  19. Brent, gone a bit quiet on this blog for a few weeks now, John has got a few private things to sort. However for a group with much the same goals you could google NZCPR in the interim.

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