Rights, Romans, Caesar, and Taxes

This is a response to my friend Manny Edwards’s brief argument, “Why God Has the Right to Tax, and Governments Don’t.”  I think he’s dead wrong on this topic, but he does have a lot of useful info on his sites (especially if you’re interested in crisis preparedness; on which topic there will be more in my next post), so check them out sometime.  [I’m semi-hesitant to make that recommendation, because half of you will think Manny’s stuff is the best thing since gun safes, and the other half will think he’s completely bats.  But that’s the price of having a diversity of friends, I guess…]



I like you, but I’m gonna take you to task on this one.  I’m going to 1. challenge your underlying premise, 2. provide biblical support for my position, and then 3. demonstrate why your argument is not self-consistent.

The Purpose of Government

Firstly: Government has the authority to tax because government was instituted by God, and endowed (delegated) with certain kinds of authority by Him.  In America, government has also been delegated and entrusted with certain powers by the people (certain powers, which are constitutionally very limited; all others being “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”).

Government exists to maintain order in society.  It does not exist, as you say elsewhere, to “preserve individual liberty.”  This is a modernist view, post-Adam-Smith, and probably descends from his error of viewing the mobile individual (as opposed to the family, clan, or perhaps even the township) as the fundamental economic unit of production.  The concept of “individual liberties” dates approximately to Locke and the Enlightenment, and has very little in the way of ancient or Biblical support.  The Founders (especially Jefferson) may have believed that, and it really is a useful concept at times; but thinking in terms of our duties, as “neighbors,” to other human beings made in the Image of God, is a much more Biblical and helpful matrix.  I can talk about the “rights” of the unborn or the oppressed, but by its nature, the idea of “rights” always starts with the individual—i.e., me—and assumes entitlement first, responsibility second.  Neither of which is a particularly Christian place to begin constructing morality.

So again: government exists to maintain order in society.  Now, there are other considerations in play, and many constraints on this truth: for instance, government does not get to define “order” however it pleases, and it does not get to enforce it by any means necessary (or convenient).  It is not right or just for government to collect as much in taxes as it wishes, in order to carry out projects that are outside its mandate and its delegated authority.  But it IS legitimate for government to collect taxes for the carrying out of its God-ordained responsibilities.  It’s even legitimate for these taxes to be on income.  (Aside: I do believe that, in this country, the income tax is probably unconstitutional, and so on that ground should be legally opposed.  Regardless, it’s far too high, and should be legally reduced.  But it is not unbiblical or immoral as such.)

Romans 13

Secondly, I must stress that, while libertarianism is advancing some very important freedoms, and reacting against some serious abuses of power, still, the libertarian view on the issue of government and taxation is not the Biblical one.  Romans 13 is very, very plain on this topic.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”  That’s a pretty clear command.  Tough to get around that one, in my opinion.

“For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”  Government has real, legitimate, God-given authority.  But there’s more here: this is also an implicit limitation on how government can think about itself: it’s not absolute, it’s subordinate.  That’s important.

“Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”  This is based in exactly the same principle as the command to “honor thy father and mother.”  I am to obey my parents (when a child) and to honor them (always) not because they “created” me (they didn’t), nor because they “own” me (they don’t), nor because they have a “right” to the fruits of my labor, nor because they’re bigger and stronger than I am (Hobbes’s “Leviathan” argument), nor even because they’re older and (presumably) wiser.  I am to obey them because God gave them authority over me.  Limited authority, but real.

The libertarian principle of “individual rights above all else” paves the way for absurdities like kids “divorcing” their parents, sexual perversion as long as it’s “in private and between consenting adults,” and the legalized abuse of drugs on the grounds that “I’m only hurting myself”—which is false, by the way.  These kind of rebellions and abuses can and should be kept in check—by appropriate use of force, if necessary.  And because they are communal and social acts, not merely private acts—for even your most private sins make you a weaker and less upstanding neighbor—government has, and should have, the authority to regulate them.

Note: the right to regulate is not the same as the right to define.  Government may oversee and authorize marriage—because marriage is a social as well as a religious, spiritual, and familial institution—but it may not presume to define (or redefine) marriage.  God defined marriage when he ordained it.  Government’s role now is to protect the institution, and to punish those who damage it.

“For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.  Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?  Then do what is good, for he is God’s servant for your good.”  Paul was writing this under Nero, let’s remember.

“But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”  Did the Roman government really promote full God-glorifying righteousness across the Empire?  Clearly not.  But did they maintain order and punish wickedness?  Well, yeah, to a large degree, they did.  (And as they moved further and further away from restraining wickedness, and more and more towards promoting it, the Empire slid further and further towards decline.)  The vicious tyranny of the Roman emperor is still preferable to the anti-authoritarian anarchy of the mobs of the French Revolution—if only because one tyrant can never do as much damage as a million individual tyrants.

“Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath, but also for the sake of conscience.”  God’s wrath, it says, not the government’s.

“For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.”  —Meaning the rewarding of righteousness and the punishment of evil.

“Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”  Do I owe a bully my lunch money because he demands it?  Legally, no, I do not.  (As a Christian, it’s more tricky: “If someone takes your cloak….”)  If a government official, operating legally in his official capacity, demands taxes from me, do I owe them to him?  Yes, I do.  If he’s demanding a bribe, well, then he’s just a thug, and that’s a separate matter.

In Paul’s day the highest authority was the Emperor.  Eventually, the lords of England (the lords, mind you, not the people at large) eventually changed that pattern by means of the Magna Carta, saying “No, the highest authority in our land is not a king, but rather the Law itself.  The king is not above the law.”  This holds true in America and (ostensibly) most other modern nations.  (Which is why we call them “nations” and not “kingdoms.”)

That’s fine.  That’s a perfectly good arrangement.  But there are still “governing authorities,” just as in Paul’s day, and the people are still subject to them.

This is why we pay taxes.  You said:

The only way you could own what belongs to someone else is if you actually owned that person.  So the government’s underlying justification for forcing the payment of taxes is that it owns you.

But the conclusion does not follow from the premise.  There are at least two other reasons why someone could rightly demand your money:

  1. If he provided something to you, for which he was then owed payment.  Example: you check the “bill me later” box and send in the postcard.  The first issue of the magazine shows up.  Then the bill shows up a few weeks later.  Eventually, if you keep ignoring the letters, the bill collector shows up.  This is the basic situation.  We say “protect us”; government says “ok”; then they send us the bill.  That doesn’t imply that they “own” us.  We just owe them payment for a service rendered.  (So you say, “But I didn’t ask for THAT service!”  Maybe not, but you did ask for the government when you came of age and elected to remain in the country, instead of moving to Antarctica.  But maybe they have some kind of government even down there.)
  2. If a higher authority, who does in fact own you and your possessions, gave him the right to do so.

Delegated Subordinate Authority

Finally, Reason #2 up there, Manny, is why your argument defeats itself.  You say “If God owns you, he can justifiably demand your money. He can also dictate your behavior.”  Ok, granted.  But if God also says “I delegated some of my authority to this person or institution; now obey it, and moreover, fund it so it can do its job”… then where does that leave you?

Now, sure: governments can declare themselves to be the top authority in the universe, worthy of all our honor, service, and worship.  (Nero did this pretty explicitly, as I recall.)  This is government failing to see itself rightly.  This view should be opposed, and when government demands that we do something God has plainly forbidden, or has reserved to himself (“bow down and worship the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar,” as the obvious example), the proper response is “No.  Kill me if you like, but NO.”  Which is what Daniel’s three friends said.

But you’ll note they did not say “You have no authority over us at all,” nor “Ok, that’s it, you’ve just illegitimized yourself as our authority; we won’t obey you in anything any more,” nor “Enough of this! Let’s start a revolution!” nor “All government is illegitimate: it’s anarchy and individualism for us now.”

Your argument, I have to say, is pretty much the same as the one that Jesus mocked in the Pharisees.  They would say to their parents “Sorry, folks, I want to honor you an’ all, but I’ve just pledged everything I own to God—it’s all corban now—so I really can’t help ya out in your old age.  But aren’t you glad I love God so much?” (My paraphrase of Mark 7:11)  Jesus saw right through this spirituality-gilded selfishness.

Your argument, as near as I can see, thumbs its nose at government in essentially the same way (though I hope not for the same motive).  Yet if God says “honor your parents” and Jesus interprets that to include “provide for their material needs,” then when God also says “be in subjection to the governing authorities,” how can you arrive at “they have no right to tax us”?  It just doesn’t parse.  God has commanded us to obey our public servants and to pay them for their work.  We either do that, or we’re in rebellion.  I know there are gray areas around the edge of this; of course there are—and much more so when authority is being abused.  But the core principle is plain.

A final piece of evidence is Christ’s reply to the Pharisees’ disciples: “Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God’s.”  You can argue about what exactly that means, but two things at least are clear: 1. Christ assumes that some things do belong to Caesar; and 2. if he believed paying taxes to Caesar really was dishonoring to his Father, he could and would have said so: he tended not to keep quiet on that issue.

The truth is, Jesus didn’t show tons of respect or approval towards the authorities of his day, either political (Herod, Pilate) or religious (Pharisees, Sadducees).  And when their petty rules got in the way of God’s command, he stepped right over them, with no apology whatsoever.  And yet we cannot call him a rebel, an anarchist, a libertarian, or even a theocrat.  If your basic assertions were correct, Jesus would have fulfilled the Zealots’ ideals of freedom, overthrown the oppressive authority structures, and set up heaven on earth.  Instead he submitted, even unto death.

If we disregard God’s appointed subordinate authorities, we do not honor him, we rebel against him.  Am I going to let my son disobey and dishonor his mother just because I’m the “head authority” in the home?  That’s not enforcing my authority: it’s abdicating it.  A God who doesn’t back up the subordinates he’s appointed is not thereby more authoritative: he’s a slacker; he’s a bad leader.  God is my ultimate authority, yes: he clearly reserves that position for himself.  So you’re on target there.  But the fact that he’s my ultimate authority does not mean he’s my only authority.  He nowhere makes that claim; in fact quite the opposite.

Your Biblical exegesis, and your basic logic, simply don’t hold up to serious scrutiny.  You’re trying to use a single Biblical teaching to justify and support a secular, modernist, individualist, selfishness-based political hypothesis, and it just doesn’t work.  I suspect that I agree with you on ninety-plus percent of the governmental policies and programs you take issue with: there are plenty of abuses happening.  And so I’m very grateful for the work you’re doing to protect and promote liberty.  We need it.  But you can’t base your activism on this kind of reasoning.  It’s not valid, and it’s not Biblical.


4 thoughts on “Rights, Romans, Caesar, and Taxes

  1. kkipple says:

    Hey Ben, your brother here. I like the way you write, and agree with a good bit of the premises above… but one thing that I think you could expound on a bit more is that we really didn’t CHOOSE our government, and that our laws change all the time, and rapidly. (Come to think of it, so do God’s commands – but it seems much more rarely. Acts 10, etc)

    I mean, we were born or live in a certain place, sure. But ever more so in this age, virtually everything about which laws apply to us is changeable. For instance, I can quickly change the following by stepping over an invisible line on a map:

    What laws apply to me, at what age
    What my tax rate is (Nevada has no individual income tax, but gambling and prostitution are legal and taxed)
    Who I can marry (same sex marriage, age of legal marriage)
    How much money I can withhold from the government, legally, etc

    Furthermore, if I am rich and wealthy, I can influence the Powers that Be or simply hire creative lawyers so that I pay highly reduced or no taxes. General Electric paid no corporate US taxes in 2010, despite making profits of over $14 billion – they actually claimed a $3 billion tax benefit. Is God “okay” with GE’s behavior, since they operated “within the law”? Is it still cheating on your taxes if you have several hundred lawyers and members of a political party who argue it isn’t? Is God happiest when we give the government the maximum lawful amount?

    (I would argue “probably not” to this last question given how government spends our money.)

    So I don’t know if it’s as cut and dried as “If we disregard God’s appointed subordinate authorities, we do not honor him, we rebel against him.” If I don’t like the laws on the books, and change them to suit ME, does God no longer see my actions as rebellion?
    I don’t think God works that way.

    Although your view is comforting and makes decisions and thought exercises easy, I think the reality may be much more grey.

    This post brought to you by Postmodernism and unsweetened iced tea from my desk.


    ps. Moral ruminations aside, I think we should remember that Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this world, and ours should not be, either.
    I suspect Jesus is much more interested in what we give to Him (Matt 25:40) than in what we hand over to the State, which is passing away.

    • Dan,

      Good points all. Somewhat outside the scope of what I was trying to address…but worth noting.

      I was arguing specifically that government IS a legitimate institution and DOES have the authority to tax. This doesn’t say anything about whether a given law or agency or structure is really moral or not. Governments have the right to exist and to make laws, but they don’t have the right to usurp things that God has reserved for himself or for individuals or for the church. They don’t have the right to make any old law they please.

      If, as I maintain, governments are subordinate delegated authorities of God, two things follow: 1. they have authority; and 2. they will answer to God for how they (ab)use it. Which is comforting to me.

      You’re correct that governments can and do change their laws. This—in principle—is fine. Letting 15-year-olds drive 80 mph in warm, flat, empty New Mexico may be more reasonable than letting them do the same on the frozen mountainous roads of Vermont. There are plenty of reasons why certain kinds of laws should vary depending on location, season, culture, technology, or what have you.

      But there are also plenty of reasons why other kinds of laws (about marriage for instance) should not change circumstantially. Some of these are prudential, but many are linked to the fact that morality derives first from God, not government.

      I’m working from the presupposition of three kinds of laws:

      • God’s moral law as defined by Scripture. These are, for the most part, very broad, and mostly concerned with actions: don’t murder, don’t bear false witness, worship Me only. Some others are concerned with thoughts and attitudes: don’t covet, love your neighbor. These are vital and fundamental, but you can’t run a country (or a locality) by them.
      • God’s moral law as expressed through conscience (for everyone) and through the specific leadings of the Spirit (for Christians). In some cases these promptings and convictions will vary from person to person, and that’s ok. In other cases a variance indicates a diseased conscience or a quenched Spirit. This is the narrowest and most personal constraint by which an individual should operate. It’s vital for the individual or family, but again, not useful for a community or a nation.
      • God’s moral law as particularized by a society. When operating correctly (which it never quite does), this legislation maintains order in society [the purpose of government], while operating within the broad moral dictates of Scripture, and also leaving scope for individual matters of conscience.

      So, some possible scenarios:

      • God’s generic biblical law does not prohibit a given act—say, kissing a girl before you’re engaged, for instance. And the state doesn’t care at all. But conscience/Spirit is saying “Eh, for you, now, bad idea.” So you don’t do it. If you do, God will hold you accountable, even though Scripture doesn’t prohibit it. “Whatever is not of faith is sin.
      • God’s generic biblical law has some warnings about drinking alcohol, but no injunctions against doing so. Your conscience is totally cool with it. But it’s 1924 and Prohibition is in force. Maybe it’s a foolish law, but it’s not an immoral, God-defying law… so you need to obey. Libertarianism would probably disagree, but it’s wrong. God will call you to account for disobeying his appointed authority, even if they made a rule that was narrower than his own. All of their rules should be narrower than his.
      • [I’m trying to think of a third scenario where the biblical principle is clear, but government and conscience have no opinion. But that would seem to imply either ignorance or a seared conscience. Anyway, if there is such a scenario, conscience should say “obey the Bible,” even if it doesn’t have a specific prompting.]
      • God’s generic biblical law, and your conscience, and the Spirit, are all saying “Hide these fugitive Jews!” But the Nazi government says “give ’em up so we can kill ’em.” Well, clearly government has overstepped its bounds and perverted justice. You obey God rather than men. God will not look kindly on an excuse of “This government which you gave to me, it gave me the law, and I obeyed!”

      So, no, you’re right: it isn’t as cut and dried as “If we disregard God’s appointed subordinate authorities, we do not honor him, we rebel against him.” That’s a true statement, but it’s not the whole story. –And you’ll note I said disregard, not disobey. There are times when disobeying the subordinate authorities is the only correct course. But this does not mean they are no longer authorities. It does not mean you can blow them off.

      I think those principles answer the GE question. I don’t know the particulars (and making money and not paying taxes aren’t wrong in themselves), but if they are indeed perverting justice by overpowering or bribing the government or whatever, then no, God doesn’t give them a pass.

      Sure, my cute little scenarios are pretty self-evident. Reality is MUCH more gray. Sin does that: it deliberately fuzzes things so it can get away with stuff. It’s deceptive, complicating, and obfuscating. It delights in spin.

      Even when sin is absent, reality is always messier than philosophy. I know that. This is why philosophy is easy and life is hard. But you can’t do life if you deny all of philosophy. If you stare at the gray so long you conclude that black and white are mythical, you have no ground for making progress of any kind. So we start with the simple obvious scenarios and work down from there: we get our principles solidly in place and then apply them to the tricky cases.

      I’m not a lawyer or a politician, so (at the governmental level) this is not my job. So I’m not going to talk about it. But like any decently-educated Christian citizen, I can affirm the basics: obey God first; obey government second; do justice and love mercy.

      So of course it’s not ok for a pack of people-with-money-and-power to enact laws simply for their own benefit. All I’m saying is, the fact that they have done so (as they do in every age), does not make it ok for me to be a rebel or an anarchist.

      As for how God works: God holds his subordinates accountable. If, as is usually the case, his appointed governments slowly transform into beasts with heads and horns and crowns, and exalt their horns against heaven: well, this is why the Rider is coming on a white horse, and with a sword.

      Here’s how God thinks—and acts:

      So justice is driven back,
      and righteousness stands at a distance;
      truth has stumbled in the streets,
      honesty cannot enter.
      Truth is nowhere to be found,
      and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

      The Lord looked and was displeased
      that there was no justice.
      He saw that there was no one,
      he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
      so his own arm worked salvation for him,
      and his own righteousness sustained him.
      He put on righteousness as his breastplate,
      and the helmet of salvation on his head;
      he put on the garments of vengeance
      and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak.
      According to what they have done,
      so will he repay
      wrath to his enemies
      and retribution to his foes;
      he will repay the islands their due.
      From the west, men will fear the name of the Lord,
      and from the rising of the sun, they will revere his glory.
      For he will come like a pent-up flood
      that the breath of the Lord drives along.

      “The Redeemer will come to Zion,
      to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,”
      declares the Lord.

      “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord.
      Isaiah 59:4-21 (NIV)

      Which pretty much brings us to Advent, Easter, Pentecost, and the Apocalypse. 🙂

      So I’ll end where you did: the Kingdom of God is coming soon. And all other kingdoms, at their best, are a dim foreshadowing of it; and, at their worst, are the rebellious chaff that will be swept away when it is finally established.

      We weep for injustice, and fight manfully against it, but we don’t agonize over it, for it will soon be ended. We submit to our earthly authorities, but we do so as citizens of another country, with better laws. We obey our governments not for the purpose not of bending ourselves to their wills, but rather of learning obedience to the King of all other kings.

  2. “Government exists to maintain order in society” — this is good, but I’d rather phrase it a bit differently. “Government exists for the right ordering of society” — where “right order” and “justice” are equivalent terms, as (I gather) in Dante. This lets me affirm both the specific role of government in a fallen world (justice, righteousness, right order) but also recognize that right order and justice are characteristic of God’s intent for His creatures. And thus government is not an unfortunate side-effect of human evil, or even a “severe mercy,” but a good thing, consequent on the nature of God and the nature of human beings.

    Government is made up of, run by, human beings. Therefore it’s pretty skewed a lot of the time. Sometimes it does outright injustice.

    But your point is important and bears repeating. The Apostle Paul, in the authoritative and God-breathed Scriptures, writes to Christians in the imperial city Rome, under the rule of Nero, the emperor who would later (unjustly) kill Paul himself, that every Christian is subject to the authority of government (in that case, nasty ol’ Nero), as part of their obedience to God.

    1 Peter says much the same thing: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”

    Notice what he said there? GOD defines living “as people who are free” as being one of those who is “subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,” including the emperor and his representatives. (That would include his tax agents, too.)

    This is freedom??? Well… yes, actually, it turns out that it is.

    if we are going to be Biblical people (rather than Lockean-Enlightenment American hyper-individualist people?) we need a new definition of freedom. And, if we are willing to listen, Peter and Paul here between ’em gives it to us. Freedom is found in God — because only God can set us free to be truly human, to be the kind of creatures we were created to be, to fulfill our nature. His service sets us free. (This deserves elaboration, but my comment is a book already, so I’ll skip to the application.)

    The difference between Christians and non-Christians is not whether or not they obey the government. Either might be found obeying, or not. The difference is WHY. Unbelievers obey the law because they’re going along with societal norms, or because they’re afraid of the consequences if they get caught disobeying. Christians know that our King and our Kingdom are elsewhere. We’re “resident aliens,” as Peter makes more than clear. We obey, not out of fear — never out of fear! — but as a freely given act of love for God, and for the people around us (whom we desire to see blessed with the kind of justice and good order that government is intended to help establish, however imperfect its execution of that job may be). In other words, we obey laws and pay taxes because we are not owned by the government. Because we belong to God alone. Because we are free.

    This also means that if the government commands us to do something contrary to God’s commands… we refuse, and accept the consequences. And that, too, is a free action.

    Freedom is not — is NOT — absence of law, or responsibility, or limits. Not unless you want to be set free from creatureliness, which is to say, free from existence (= dead). Freedom IS absence of coercion… because we freely choose to submit, not because they can make us (they can’t — all they can do is kill us, after all, and we follow a King who has conquered death!), but because we love God. Freedom is found in Christ, which means that freedom is found, and only found, in self-giving love.

    I’ll quit typing now. 🙂

    • And so, for the Christian, the libertarian concern about government coercion effectively evaporates. We can and should work (as citizens) for less-coercive governments, but (as Christians) we can obey an unjust authority and still be, in the most essential senses, “free.”

      When we obey government, we do so because we are subjects of the King. When we disobey, we (should) do so for exactly the same reason.

      We’re upset by injustice in the same way that God is: righteously indignant—hopefully to the point of taking action, if possible—but not despairing or fretful or complaining.

      And yeah, persecution and everything aside, that’s a pretty comfortable place to be. 🙂

      To “freak out” about government oppression, or to respond in a way that grabs desperately at control, is to tacitly grant the government a power over us that it does not actually have. It also probably displays a lack of appreciation and gratefulness for the functionality we actually DO have in our current government. Lisa is reading Wild Swans just now, and occasionally marvels to me about the cataclysmic and chronic upheaval, terror, oppression, and general absurdity that plagued China through most of the Twentieth Century. (I’m not sure it was tremendously better before or after—China has had a rough history—but the Communist era was the definite low point.) This is an instance of government failing at its most basic telos, whereas ours—for all its manifold problems—by and large succeeds. We don’t have assassinations and coups every election cycle, for instance.

      This is one of the many paradoxes of Christianity: we can hate, with righteous Godly passion, two thirds of what our government does, and work assiduously to alter it; and at the same time thank God for the government and obey it scrupulously in almost everything. We can do this without putting trust in government (current or “improved” or abolished), and without despairing about government (current or degenerated or abolished).

      This is the peace that “passes all understanding”: peace “not as the world gives.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s