Captain Jerry Flynn Smart Meters Cell phones Cell phone towers WiFi Microwave ovens Cordless phones Baby monitors Wireless devices Bowser, B.C. 778 424-9609

jerry flynn Divine-Intervention

Thursday, March 12, 2015
‘Smart meters’ called a major threat to health, national security
There’s a growing body of science linking non-thermal radiation to cancer


“jerry flynn” “5181 Gainsberg Road” Bowser, B.C., V0R 1G0 “778 424-9609″


Non-Thermal Microwave Radiation

Global Population is at Risk!

By Captain Jerry Flynn-Retired


Category Archives: Interviews & press


Wireless Technology
The Worst Threat to our
Personal Privacy
National Security
in Canada’s Entire History

All wireless devices
emit harmful non-thermal RADIATION
AM & FM radio towers, satellite TV, Amateur
Radio, airport radars, police radars, Microwave
ovens, cell phones, cell phone towers, iPhones,
smart phones, cordless phones, iPads, tablets, Wi-
Fi routers (2.4 or 5 GHz) home security systems,
baby monitors, laptops, garage door openers,
Bluetooth, remote control units, GPS satellites,
TETRA Networks (BC Hydro 409-430 MHz: 17.6
Hz), Wi-Max towers (2.3, 2.5, 3.5, 5.8 MHz),

Wireless Devices (Cont’d)
military & scientific satellites, motion detectors,
Wi-Fi hotspots: cities, towns, buildings, school
buses, Greyhound buses, VIA Rail trains, planes,
restaurants), body area networks (BANs), Car Wi-
Fi; RFIDs (900 MHz), X-rays, CT Scans, MRIs,
Pagers, some Copiers, Motion Detectors, Wii &
Wii U, and Xbox 360 games. Car-collision
avoidance, Smart Meters, Meshed-grid networks,


unnecessarily fearful of electromagnetic radiation?

“Have you heard of Jerry Flynn? A Canadian expert in naval intelligence… this was his speciality, microwave warfare… one of the foremost experts in the Canadian government. And he says [Smart Meters] are one of the worst things that will ever happen to humankind.”


jerry flynn hat-tip

Hat tip – Harold Saive
“They are flesh and blood human beings like the rest of us sometimes they are right sometimes they are wrong.”
— The Great Supernatural Secret, Ivan Bell – 2009

Governments must no longer ignore what the Soviet/Russian and U.S. Militaries learned from their seven-decades-long exhaustive research:

a) microwaves are the perfect military weapon;

b) low-level, pulsed, non-thermal radiation – at even the weakest levels – is harmful to all living things; and,

c) the most lethal frequencies within the entire RF band are between 900 MHz to 5 GHz –

and are particularly lethal to a human’s central nervous system and immune system.

Any EMR emitted on microwave frequencies is a potential weapon – not a consumer product!


“Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information – misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information – information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”

― Neil Postman


There must be a term for this concept.

Those who would conceal the truth spread false information too horrible to be believed.

The target audience opts to “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.”

A defense mechanism, a coping technique that reduces anxiety arising from the unacceptable or the potentially harmful.

Instead the subject believes another falsehood, easier to believe.

The truth which lies somewhere in the middle gets lost.

Mission accomplished.]





Published on Apr 2, 2013

Jerry Flynn’s specialized training and understanding of directed energy weapons gives him a special understanding and, therefore, alarm about the information he is hearing for the first time. The following is an overview of that experience, as well as details about the SIGINT program. He came out of retirement to raise alarm bells about Smart Meters which are another form of weaponization of the power grid, yet evidence of free energy has been presented to the world through the events of 911 and through this amazing presentation. Please share.



jerry flynn 2 jerry flynn 3 jerry flynn 4 jerry flynn 5 jerry flynn 6 jerry flynn 7 jerry flynn 8 jerry flynn 9



95 thoughts on “Captain Jerry Flynn Smart Meters Cell phones Cell phone towers WiFi Microwave ovens Cordless phones Baby monitors Wireless devices Bowser, B.C. 778 424-9609

  1. Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts
    Mian Chin – 2009

    More generally, aerosols can alter the location of solar radiation absorption within the system, and this aspect alone can alter climate and precipitation even without producing any change in net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (the usual metric for climate impact).

    By decreasing solar absorption at the surface, aerosols (from both the direct and indirect effects) reduce the energy available for evapotranspiration, potentially
    resulting in a decrease in precipitation.

    This effect has been suggested as the reason for the decrease in pan evaporation over the last 50 years (Roderick and Farquhar, 2002).

    The decline in solar radiation at the surface appears to have ended in the 1990s (Wild et al., 2005), perhaps because of reduced aerosol emissions in industrial areas (Kruger and Grasl, 2002), although this issue is still not settled.


  2. andrewjlockley

    Poster’s note : here’s some data on tropospheric aerosol which we’d need to replace with geoengineering if we don’t want to suffer warming from cleanup of factories, power plants, vehicles and stoves.


    Su, W., N. G. Loeb, G. L. Schuster, M. Chin, and F. G. Rose (2013), Global all-sky shortwave direct radiative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols from combined satellite observations and GOCART simulations, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 655–669, doi:10.1029/2012JD018294.


    aerosol;direct radiative effect;direct radiative forcing;clouds



    Response to Commentaries on ‘Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering’

    Toby Svoboda and Peter Irvine
    a Department of Philosophy, Fairfield University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USAb Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam,Germany

    Ethics, Policy & Environment

    Volume 18, Issue 1, 2015, pages 103- 105
    Published online: 24 Apr 2015

    DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2015.1021948

    We thank the commentators for their interesting and helpful feedback on our previously published target article (Svoboda & Irvine, 2014). One of our objectives in that article was to identify areas of uncertainty that would need to be addressed in crafting a just SRM compensation system. The commentators have indicated some possible ways of reducing such uncertainty. Although we cannot respond to all their points due to limitations of space, we wish to address here the more pressing criticisms the commentators have offered.

    Response to Reynolds
    Jesse Reynolds suggests that the ‘primary problem’ in our paper is that we treat ‘the shortcomings of SRM and of compensation for its potential negative secondary effects as if they were sui generis.’ But it is not our view that SRM compensation is a sui generis problem, nor do we state that it is in our paper. Setting aside the technical challenges, it may well be true that the ethical challenges faced by SRM compensation are already faced in other domains, such as socially organized responses to complex problems, other instances of providing compensation, and climate change (to take Reynold’s examples).

    Our claim was that providing compensation for SRM-related harm faces some difficult challenges. If Reynolds is right, many or all of these same challenges arise in other domains. Our argument is not undermined by the fact (if it is one) that there are parallels among these different domains, for the challenges to SRM compensation remain challenges even if they are not unique to SRM. Reynolds writes that ‘SRM might be especially complex, in large part of its global nature, but that does not make it entirely novel.’ We can agree with this, because we did not claim that SRM is entirely novel. Moreover, as the issue of SRM compensation is particularly complex, it is worth investigating whether we can disentangle the many issues involved and reduce uncertainty regarding them.

    Reynolds also suggests that we ‘stack the deck against SRM’ by focusing too much on the potential harms of SRM (Horton raises a similar concern), but we think this is due to a misunderstanding of what our paper aims to do. Although we noted throughout the paper that SRM could have many benefits, we did not emphasize these potential benefits because the issue under investigation was compensation provision for harms due to SRM. This focus will tend to emphasize potential harms, as our primary question was how such harms should be remunerated. Given that question, it would be odd to emphasize the potential benefits of SRM, although we certainly acknowledge them.

    Likewise, it is important to note that we were not addressing whether some form of SRM should be deployed in the future. As we wrote, ‘We conclude that establishing a just SRM compensation system faces severe difficulties. This does not necessarily imply that SRM ought never to be deployed, as there might be satisfactory ways to resolve these difficulties. Furthermore, even if these difficulties are not fully surmounted, it does not necessarily follow that SRM deployment would be impermissible.’ We certainly don’t think the challenges of SRM compensation should create ‘paralysis among policy makers,’ as Reynolds implies, but we do think these challenges are worth considering.

    Response to Horton
    On the basis of recent modeling studies, Joshua Horton suggests that SRM deployment might make no region of the world worse off relative to pre-industrial conditions, in which case there would not be regional ‘losers’ as a result of SRM. But regions themselves are not moral patients, so it does not strictly matter for ethical purposes whether some region itself is made better or worse off. What matters is whether persons are harmed or benefited. Even if there are no regional ‘losers’ due to SRM, it is virtually certain that there will be individuals made worse off within those regions, and such individuals may deserve compensation.

    Horton suggests more than once that the benefits of SRM might outweigh its costs. He notes that ‘historically, societies have adopted systems of compensation for hazardous activities precisely because the benefits are believed to outweigh the costs’ (Horton, 2014, p. 176). While the overall balance of costs and benefits of SRM and attendant compensation is no doubt important, justice also concerns the distribution of costs and benefits among persons. That being the case, even if SRM in tandem with compensation passes a cost–benefit test, it does not follow that SRM would be just (although it could be). We are not suggesting that Horton would deny that justice involves more than the balance of overall costs and benefits, but he seems to overlook the importance of how costs and benefits are to be allocated among persons rather than regions.

    Finally, Horton thinks we imply that ethical certainty is required ‘for compensation to be regarded as just’ (Horton, 2104, p. 176). This is not our view. First, certainty or uncertainty regarding whether some compensation system is just is an epistemic matter, and this is distinct from whether some compensation system actually is just. Some compensation system could be just, and correctly regarded as such, even if we are not certain of that fact. Second, our goal in flagging cases of ethical uncertainty regarding SRM compensation was to identify points regarding which further consideration may be worthwhile, but this does not entail that ethical certainty is a necessary condition for just SRM compensation. We are only committed to the view that, all else being equal, it would be better to reduce such uncertainty, for that puts us in an improved position to judge what sorts of SRM compensation would be just or unjust.

    Response to Garcia
    Robert Garcia focuses on a small part of our paper, in which we raise some questions regarding whether the polluter pays principle (PPP) is the appropriate ethical principle for determining who ought to provide SRM compensation. If successful, Garcia’s commentary would show that PPP is somewhat more promising than we explicitly recognized. To clarify, we did not take ourselves to be offering ‘allegations’ to the effect that PPP is not a reasonable principle. We think Garcia succeeds in showing that reasonable responses are available to some of our questions, but his responses can also be reasonably contested.

    To take one example, we noted that it would seem unfair for an impoverished state that is part of an SRM coalition to be required to pay compensation, as PPP would seem to do. Relying on a macro-version of PPP, Garcia replies that a party is responsible for providing an amount of compensation that is proportionate to the amount of pollution it has caused, which can be measured by the financial contribution of each party to the polluting activity. As an impoverished state’s financial contribution to SRM is likely to be small, that state will likely be responsible for providing a proportionately small amount of compensation, and Garcia argues that this does not appear to be unfairly burdensome.

    However, we still think that PPP could render unfair verdicts even here. As the direct costs of some SRM techniques appear to be low (Barrett, 2008) but the damages could be quite high (e.g., due to abrupt termination of SRM), paying an amount of compensation that is proportionate to a relatively low financial contribution to SRM may nonetheless be debilitating and perhaps unfairly burdensome. This is because the total compensation required might be far greater than the total direct costs of deployment. This is not to deny that PPP should be used to determine who ought to provide SRM compensation. Our point was only that PPP is controversial, and this engenders uncertainty regarding whether it should be used as part of an SRM compensation system.


  4. Michael Hayes
    Apr 30

    Re: [geo] Re: Warning over aerosol climate fix – BBC News

    Andrew et. al.,

    Ocean up-take should be our primary point of CO2 capture, which sets up a wealth of downstream critical commodities through proper utilization and sequestration. The technology needed for vast scale mid-oceanic farming of marine biomass is well developed yet the suite of technologies have simply never been assimilated for such a mission.

    Concerning the statement of: “You’d have to keep sulphur emissions constant for this to happen, though”; That technical ramp-down strategy is useful. Yet, sulfur/BC are a secondary issue(s) and not fundamentally dependant upon SAI for that balancing act.

    Concerning the statement of: Choosing whether to maintain sulphur protection is one of the ways to ‘get the camel’s nose in the tent’, as far as SRM acceptability goes.”; I assume you are using SRM as simply meaning SAI? As I’m sure you recall, the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) SRM regimen has no primary/secondary connection to sulfur/BC.

    The MCB regimen is a highly predictable form od SRM, controllable on short wave deployment status and does not generate Polar Stratspheric Clouds (PSC) and thus trigger Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (CGH) like effects etc. Yet, MCB, being primarily associated with the hydraulic loop, can thus trump SAIs claim to hydraulic cycle modulation superiority due to the far heavier cost per polar (in-)stability.

    In many ways, the SAI protocol seems to be a well designed regimen to increase PCS/CGH effects. By all accounts, the SAI protocol is directed at creating a physically ‘equitable’ atmosphere which does insure increased vulnerability to PSC/CGH threats.

    The lack of delta-T in the atmospheric dynamics (a.k.a. an equitable atmosphere), does destabilize many aspects of the climate and creating an equitable atmosphere is the stated goal of the SAI strategy. An equitable atmosphere…is…the primary threat vector, at this time, presented by global warming….and SAI.

    As atmospheric moisture is a secondary issue, we need to look to the primary systemic issues (CO2 capture/utilization/sequestration) for central technical points upon which a (bio) geoengineering metastrategy can be built upon. Marine biomass production, on vast scale, with support from protocols such as MCB, biochar, olivine, AWL etc. represents a robust bio-geoengineering regimen which does not increase the PSC/CGH threat level and can help maintain a balanced (non-equitable atmospheric based) planetary climate.

    John, your statement of; “SRM-type geoengineering is the only kind of intervention which could cool the planet straightaway” seems to ignore MCB and that SAI does not offer polar cooling! Also, the Arctic methane issue may be best served by use of the methane within cultivation systems as well as used for ice production.

    In brief, SAI will warm the polar regions simply due to the expected increase in PSC. Your AMEG group is actually supporting the warming of the polar regions through supporting SAI. Is that the AMEG group’s actual intentions?

    Doug, thank you for the plots. I believe a great deal of attention needs to be paid to that type of data as such data may be seen as a strong indicator for net negative global emissions (per RCP 2.6). As can easily be deduces from the SAI protocol, it simply does…zero…in getting us to RCP 2.6.

    I was not able to find the Cao et al, 2011 paper. Can you send a link?

    Parminder, as biologists often remind use, nature often pivots upon the swing of a few percentages within critical relationships. The carbon capture, utilization and sequestration relationships in nature does offer important instructions for us in getting to RCP.2.6. within a “self-organizing, complex, adaptive system”. The IPCC supported Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) path is seemingy the best fit with such a highly dynamic matrix.

    In conclusion; To quote Dr. Sallie Chisholm on her views concerning geoengineering as it is most popularly defined (SAI?); “Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player in what ever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms that are evolving every second-a ‘self-organizing, complex, adaptive system’. These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion.”.

    Bio-geoengineering, through marine biomass production/biochar/olivine/bio-energy/MCB etc., does not neglect the above obvious reality, as so well put forth by Dr. Chisholm, as the bio-geoengineering suite of technologies are all flexible enough to keep pace with a self-organizing, adaptive and vastly complex planetary system(s)…..while also achieving RCP 2.6.

    Whereas, SAI does profoundly neglect the emergent/evolutionary properties of nature and does so at a fundamentally critical level….sunlight!!! And, SAI does nothing towards assistance in our critical need to achieve the RCP 2.6 scenario.

    Thus, SAI, under its current deployment protocol, must be viewed at the policy, socioeconomic and environmental levels as being highly un-necessarily un-safe and the claim that SAI is “The only thing a politician can do to start the planet cooling is solar geoengineering’ is simply not supportable at the STEM/policy levels….on the face of it..

    Best regards,


    Michael Hayes

    “How inadequate it is to term this planet “Earth”, as it is evident that is should be called “Ocean”. Arthur C. Clarke.

    “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. La Ciudadela

    The IMBECS Protocol Draft: A Marine Centric Biogeoengineering Thesis

    The Blue Biochar Initiative (BBI) website



  5. Perhaps the most promising geoengineering technique is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which reflects incoming solar radiation, thereby lowering surface
    temperatures. This paper analyzes a scenario in which SAI brings great harm on its own. The scenario is based on the issue of SAI intermittency, in which aerosol injection is halted, sending temperatures rapidly back toward where they would have been without SAI.

    Click to access 2013_DoubleCatastrophe.pdf


  6. A great many of our most brilliant scientists have taken the lessons of past engineering failures to heart, including the failure of foresight represented by climate change itself, which is one of the primary reasons there is still so much resistance to geoengineering among biologists and climate scientists.

    To quote Sallie Chisholm, a world-renowned expert on marine microbes at MIT, “Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player (not just a responder) in whatever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms (mostly microorganisms) that are evolving every second—a ‘self-organizing, complex, adaptive system’ (the strict term).

    These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion,”[22]

    Indeed in my time spent among the would-be geoengineers, I have been repeatedly struck by how the hard-won lessons about humility before nature that have reshaped modern science, particularly the fields of chaos and complexity theory, do not appear to have penetrated this particular bubble.

    On the contrary, the Geoclique is crammed with overconfident men prone to complimenting each other on their fearsome brainpower.

    At one end you have Bill Gates, the movement’s sugar daddy, who once remarked that it was difficult for him to decide which was more important, his work on computer software or inoculations, because they both rank “right up there with the printing press and fire.”

    At the other end is Russ George, the U.S. entrepreneur who has been labeled a “rogue geoengineer” for dumping some one hundred tons of iron sulphate off the coast of British Columbia in 2012.

    “I am the champion of this on the planet,” he declared after the experiment was exposed, the only one with the guts to “step forward to save the oceans.”

    In the middle are scientists like David Keith, who often comes off as deeply conflicted about “opening up Pandora’s Box”—but once said of the threat of weakened monsoons from Solar Radiation Management that “hydrological stresses” can be managed “a little bit by irrigation.”[23] 

    The ancients called this hubris; the great American philosopher, farmer and poet Wendell Berry calls it “arrogant ignorance,” adding, “We identify arrogant ignorance by its willingness to work on too big a scale, and thus to put too much at risk.”*[24]


  7. Have you ever noticed it’s the photographers and the painters and others who see the big picture who are really upset about the “scattering” of aerosols Most don’t want to be reminded that they smoke too much pot or are way too cerebral to even see the world around them. Perhaps way too narcissistic?


  8. #chemTrails #ozone
    “The study found that injections of small particles over the next 20 years could reduce the ozone layer by 100 to 230 Dobson Units”
    According to Science Daily, “…injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere would have a drastic impact on Earth’s protective ozone layer …


  9. You won’t want to miss this presentation at the next Tea Party in the Hills meeting coming up on Wed. March 25, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the American Legion Hall Post 119, 4561 Greenstone Rd., Placerville, CA.

    Guest speaker
    Deborah J. Whitman,
    President Environmental Voices.

    with special guest, world renown
    Michael J. Murphy,
    a multi-award winning Director/Producer, Political Activist and President of The Coalition Against Geoengineering.

    “WHY in the World are They Spraying?”
    “WHAT in the World are They Spraying?”
    If you don’t “believe in chemtrails” please join us too.
    These speakers are exceptional.

    The Coalition Against Geoengineering MISSION STATEMENT:
    To protect our planet from famine and disease inflicted by insane scientists, monopolistic corporations, and rogue governments.

    Additional background on Geoenginerring:
    –> Geo Locate:
    El Dorado Hills


  10. ice mountain? #Ceres pics #plasmaDischargeCometModel Bears repeating I don’t always agree w #McCanney I respect his sci

    [To accompany images forthcoming.]

    05/12/2015 Picture of the Day – FINALLY – #Ceres pics

    see explanation of the pics and link to downloadable video below … this is interesting … i discovered Mount McCanney (i think) …

    read this then re-read the 05/06/2015 Picture of the Day posting which i left posted below to compare bright spots of Ceres and Mercury …

    it appears that these are naturally occurring phenomenon related to both collision AND electrical discharges to the planetary surfaces …

    Above is a size comparison pic of Earth – our Moon and Ceres …

    Ceres is the smaller one but is still spherical meaning that when it formed (during its comet stage of development) it had sufficient self gravity to pull the molten blob into a sphere …

    BUT is too small to be considered a real planet because (by definition) it is too small to gravitationally control the region in its orbit …

    the region between Mars and Jupiter where thousands of asteroids orbit the sun … and in every which direction … the term “asteroid belt” is a misnomer it is an “asteroid zone” …

    but Ceres does not control them so Ceres is termed a “minor planet”

    Above one of the “bright spots” that has puzzled scientists (including myself) since first seen in lower resolution pics years ago from the Hubble Space Telescope

    (i know many of you are thinking “alien base” but is there a natural cause? keep reading … )

    Above is a complete (both sides) composite pic of Ceres taken from 8400 miles away …

    notice a few of the “bright spots” which they have discovered with close up photos are many many small bright spots close together …

    they seem to be either on rim edges OR out in the middle of a large crater having nothing to do with the formation of the crater …

    NOW … the final video pic …

    this is about 27 MBytes (BIG BIG) download so right click on the link below and select “open in separate tab” and then continue reading below until the download completes …

    the download is a video of Ceres rotating …

    first understand that Ceres is a large frozen ball of ice according to NASA mass analysis (and possibly sloshy water mixture) with a dark sooty covering …

    in watching i noticed a “bump and its shadow” …

    i will discuss this more below but my first belief is that this is an ice mountain created as icy water broke through the surface layer and like a volcano on earth of molten rock formed an ICE MOUNTAIN … i thought of calling it Mount McCanney …

    but instead of seeking more fame than i already have (NASA would never give me credit anyway) i am naming it Mount Gerda after the Hans Christian Anderson 1844 fairy tale The Snow Queen who is beset by evil trolls …

    i like that theme also since in the real world NASA employs evil “internet trolls” to do its bidding (angrily demanding you believe their Bad Astronomy and Science) and run amuck with good science …

    so watch the video and watch the far left horizon edge of Ceres as the horizon becomes visible …

    Mount Gerda (an ice mountain i am presuming) first appears as a small pimple looking bump on the left side and as it moves to the right you can see its shadow (upwards of the bump because the sunlight is coming from below) …

    watch Mount Gerda as it crosses the disk along the lower portion of Ceres AND THEN EMERGES again to the lower right hand side again as a bump along the eastern horizon …

    all the time you can see its shadow to the “north” or upper side …

    MOUNT GERDA … i like that … BUT BUT BUT !!!

    there is something more immediately obvious about Ceres … isn’t it what you would call a “dirty snow ball” … a ball of ice covered with a dark layer of sooty material ?!?!?

    yes it is … by NASA’s own analysis … a GIANT ONE …

    but wait boys and girls grandmas and grandpas … shouldn’t it be acting as a raging comet ??????

    yes it should according to the NASA dirty snowball comet model …

    just like the icy moons of Jupiter Europa Ganymede and Callisto which also lie naked to the solar wind … BUT NO COMET TAIL SEEN !!!

    so could that mean that ONCE AGAIN the McCanney Plasma Discharge Comet Model comes through ???

    could the answer be in the affirmative ???

    now look at mercury below with its surface bright spots and compare to Ceres …

    jim mccanney


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