Morning Report: The bond vigilantes return

Vital Statistics:

 

  Last Change
S&P futures 3699 -19.3
Oil (WTI) 50.02 0.24
10 year government bond yield   1.03%
30 year fixed rate mortgage   2.78%

Stocks are lower this morning as the Georgia runoff results are coming in. Bonds and MBS are getting clobbered.

 

Democrats have won one of the GA Senate seats and the other remains too close to call. Unified control of the country by Democrats is bearish for stocks and bonds, and the 10 year is trading above 1%.

 

The reaction in the bond market indicates that the bond vigilante is awakening from its 30 year slumber. The Bond Vigilantes bedeviled Bill Clinton’s first term as anything he did to stimulate the economy was greeted with higher interest rates.

 

The FOMC minutes will be released around 2:00 pm this afternoon. It probably won’t be market-moving, but just be aware.

 

Mortgage Applications fell 4.2% over the two week holiday period as purchases fell 0.8% and refis fell 8%. “Mortgage rates started 2021 close to record lows, most notably with the 30-year fixed rate at 2.86 percent, and the 15-year fixed rate at a survey low of 2.40 percent,” said Joel Kan, MBA Associate Vice President of Economic and Industry Forecasting. “The record-low rates for fixed-rate mortgages is good news for borrowers looking to refinance or buy a home, as around 98 percent of all applications are for fixed-rate loans. Despite these low rates, overall application activity fell sharply during the holiday period – which is typical every year. Refinance applications were 6 percent lower than two weeks ago, and purchase activity less than 1 percent from its pre-holiday level.”

 

The economy lost 123,000 jobs in December, according to the ADP report. The Street is looking for 65,000 jobs in this Friday’s jobs report.

 

Manufacturing improved in December, according to the ISM Report. Overall, the report says that despite the COVID-19 headwinds, things are getting better. One thing did jump out at me: Every commodity was up in price. Nothing was down, and there were all sorts of shortages. Whether this is just a COVID-related bottleneck remains to be seen, but commodity booms are usually associated with higher inflation.

109 Responses

    • doesn’t the left do this every time they lose though? Don’t a gaggle of democrats object to the EV vote every time a R wins?

      Like

      • there are guns drawn on the house floor.

        Like

      • Break through the security barriers and force the US Capitol into lock down and stop congressional proceedings?

        No, they don’t. This is no where near what the Women’s March’s, etc had after Trump won.

        The key differentiator here is Trump’s role in instigating this. Now he’s backpedaling because he wasn’t prepared for what he unleashed, but it’s too late.

        As Cuccinelli noted in a Tweet, this is the same thing that the Antifa did in Portland with the Federal courthouse on a bigger scale. But you didn’t have the elected Democratic mayor egging them on. Just being ineffectual in stopping them.

        Like

  1. Note that a bomb was sent to the RNC too, from the NYT link above:

    “An explosive device is found at the R.N.C., and the D.N.C. is evacuated.

    An explosive device was found at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee in Washington and the nearby headquarters of the Democratic National Committee was evacuated after the discovery of a suspicious package on Wednesday, according to three people briefed on the discoveries.

    The device that was found at the R.N.C. was a pipe bomb that was successfully destroyed by a bomb squad, according to an official for the R.N.C.

    The package at the D.N.C. has yet to be identified, according to a top Democrat briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

    The R.N.C. and D.N.C. are headquartered just a few blocks away from the U.S. Capitol, which Mr. Trump’s supporters stormed on Wednesday afternoon soon as Congress had gathered to certify President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory and shortly after the president addressed the crowd near the White House.

    As a mob breached the Capitol, Vice President Mike Pence was rushed from the Senate chamber and the building was placed on lockdown. Shortly after, Mr. Trump tweeted that Mr. Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done” because he did not try to reject the electors.

    The National Guard for Washington and Virginia was activated Wednesday afternoon to respond to the unrest.”

    This is rising to the level of 1968, at least in DC.

    Like

    • Absolutely fascinating to watch the coverage. Apparently, we are now NAZI Germany and Lincoln just attempted to resupply Ft. Sumpter.

      No caning of Senators yet.

      Like

      • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

        Like

        • I’m sure the protesters were armed and brandishing, that would be the only reason to shoot them. She looked black, if so, can we defund the Capital Police? This is what happens when people think there is no recourse. Call them violent NAZI brownshirts, might as well act like ’em.

          Like

        • “This is what happens when people think there is no recourse. ”

          They are delusional then. They just lost an election and then were egged on by Trump. There was plenty of recourse in two years.

          Like

        • These people believe that the election was stolen, doesn’t matter if their delusional or not. I’m not particularly bothered that Trump supporters are protesting, complaining about corruption and walking around the floor of the Senate, it’s not “sacred ground”. Is it bad that politicians should fear their constituents?

          Like

        • jnc:

          They are delusional then.

          It may be fair to say that Trump is acting irresponsibly, but after spending 4 years watching the way his election was undermined by the media and the permanent DC political class, most notably with the 3 year investigation into a hoax scandal, I don’t think it is fair to call them delusional for thinking that elections may not be the recourse you think they are (and that they are supposed to be).

          Blame Trump for egging them on, fine. But you shouldn’t deny the role that the left and the media have played in bringing them to this point.

          Like

        • jnc:

          You’ve also been saying for a long time that we need a national divorce. Maybe this is what it looks like.

          Like

        • A lot of folks point at Trump, and sure, he’s a narcissist and will make it all about him while the country burns.

          But for a lot of people, they are being explicitly told that they need to always play by the rules while the other side doesn’t have to anymore. They are given no option to resolve their issues or have their say on issues, and are actively prevented from sharing the public commons and having their say. When people feel they are out of all traditional remedies, they seek new ones.

          The solution is not to take away the traditional remedies.

          Add lockdowns and mandates and politicians across the spectrum saying you have to stay locked in your room over the holidays while they go vacation in the Bahamas, and this kind of shit is going to happen, no matter how unproductive it is.

          Like

        • There may be recourse, but the apparent efficacy and equal access to the arena ideas seems to be . . . shifting.

          Twitter and Facebook and YouTubes new censorship policies play a role in all this, as does the COVID lockdowns and the defund the police stuff. Not to mention the suddent explosion of wokeness in the institutions, to the point where the congress wants to get rid of any gendered word.

          There’s a lot of pieces in this puzzle, in my opinion.

          Like

        • KW:

          There’s a lot of pieces in this puzzle, in my opinion.

          I agree. And a lot of them were in place well before Trump came along.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I did notice that Mitch McConnell echoes the weasel words of “no widespread fraud”

          Doesn’t have to be widespread. A handful of precincts in a handful of big cities is all that is needed.

          That raised a flag for me.

          Like

      • I thought McConnell’s speech was spot on:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/06/mitch-mcconnells-forceful-rejection-trumps-election-conspiracy-theories/

        The relevant passage about election fraud:

        “I’ve supported the president’s right to use the legal system, dozens of lawsuits, perceived hearings in courtrooms all across our country. But over and over, the courts rejected these claims — including all-star judges whom the president himself has nominated. Every election we know features some illegality and irregularity, and of course that’s unacceptable. I support strong, state-led voting reforms. Last year’s bizarre pandemic procedures must not become the new norm.

        But, my colleagues, nothing before us proves illegality anywhere near the massive scale — the massive scale — that would have tipped the entire election. Nor can public doubt alone justify a radical break, when the doubt itself was incited without any evidence. The Constitution gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids.

        The voters, the courts and the states have all spoken. They’ve all spoken. If we overrule them, it would damage our republic forever.”

        Like

  2. Sigh. Now we get to watch everyone in the press and on social media flip sides on protests/riots and cracking down on them.

    Like

    • yep, dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.

      Like

    • jnc:

      Now we get to watch everyone in the press and on social media flip sides on protests/riots and cracking down on them.

      Don’t you think this (now routine and predictable) blatant hypocrisy and heads-I-win-tails-you-lose media coverage legitimately inflames those on the wrong side if it?

      Like

      • Not to the point that it justifies storming the US Capitol.

        So, no I wouldn’t qualify it as “legitimately”, even though inflaming the situation might be a predictable consequence of the media’s coverage.

        Down that road lies the argument that the Charlie Hebdo writers had it coming.

        I don’t see any of these people on either side (Antifa or Proud Boys) as “victims”.

        Like

        • jnc:

          Not to the point that it justifies storming the US Capitol.

          I’m genuinely curious…what would?

          Down that road lies the argument that the Charlie Hebdo writers had it coming.

          I don’t see that. Just because a sense of outrage at the media for one reason is not justified doesn’t mean no sense of outrage at the media can ever be justified.

          I don’t see any of these people on either side (Antifa or Proud Boys) as “victims”.

          If the media hides the actions of one group while magnifying the exact same actions of a different group, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the latter group is a victim of an unfair and biased media, even if I find the actions themselves to be objectionable.

          Like

        • “I don’t see that. Just because a sense of outrage at the media for one reason is not justified doesn’t mean no sense of outrage at the media can ever be justified.”

          That’s not exactly what I meant. I was referring to the argument that the Muslim terrorists who murdered them couldn’t be expected to control themselves because the cartoons were so inflammatory.

          Like

        • Well, this gets me back to my question, which really was genuine…..what would justify storming the Capitol building? And to get back to an earlier point, if a national divorce is desirable, isn’t this just the kind of activity one would expect will be needed?

          Like

        • I don’t know what everyone is bitching about, the protest is mostly peaceful.

          Like

        • “Well, this gets me back to my question, which really was genuine…..what would justify storming the Capitol building?”

          Something like the Long Parliament where they refused to leave after an election.

          Another possibility would be if some Democrats get their way and vote to expel Republicans en mass from Congress. Basically disenfranchisement.

          Like

        • jnc:

          Basically disenfranchisement.

          So then I guess if what these people believe, ie that the election was essentially stolen, is actually true, then they would be justified.

          I also don’t think it is crazy for Trump supporters to view the attempts to undermine his presidency and prevent him from implementing policy, in the form of the Russian Collusion Hoax investigation and also in the form of the self-proclaimed bureaucratic “resistance”, as a form of disenfranchisement.

          As an aside, I actually think that SCOTUS has been disenfranchising people for some time. Roe/Casey and Obergefell are very good examples of SCOTUS disenfranchising voters. The doctrine of substantive due process is a tool for disenfranchising people.

          Like

        • “So then I guess if what these people believe, ie that the election was essentially stolen, is actually true, then they would be justified.”

          Except that their beliefs have no compelling evidence for them.

          This was ginned up by Trump due to his narcissism.

          Again, I don’t think Barr was covering for the Democrats and the left.

          Like

        • compelling evidence for them

          Compelling is a very subjective term. I find some of the testimony, affidavits and analysis pretty compelling.

          Like

        • jnc:

          Except that their beliefs have no compelling evidence for them.

          I find some of the statistical evidence to be at least somewhat compelling.

          I also find it, shall we say, kind of convenient that not only did the rules regulating the one method of casting a ballot that is most subject to fraud (by mail) just happen to be massively loosened in many states (in some instances by legally questionable means), but that the overwhelming majority of people who chose to vote using that method also just happened to be Biden voters. Compelling evidence in a court of law? No, but enough to raise suspicions? I think so.

          Short of an outright admission by an active participant, what kind of evidence would you find compelling, or, if not compelling, at least enough to render suspicions to be not entirely delusional?

          This was ginned up by Trump due to his narcissism.

          Yes indeed. Doesn’t make it false, though. Just because someone is paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t anyone out to get them. And as you should know, there are a lot of dishonest people out to get Trump, whatever his own character faults may be.

          Again, I don’t think Barr was covering for the Democrats and the left.

          Again, I don’t either.

          Like

        • Pretty sure you have to be a narcissist to run for POTUS.

          Like

        • McWing:

          Pretty sure you have to be a narcissist to run for POTUS.

          I definitely agree with that.

          Like

        • I agree as well. Trump was unusually blatant in his narcissism. But Obama wasn’t exactly light. Folks like Dubya are more of the humblebrag kind of narcissist. But they are all narcissists.

          Like

        • What was your take on the Democrats/progressives/leftists evidence of election fraud in 2016, 2004 and 2000?

          2004 with the complaints about Karl Rove and voting machines in Ohio seems to be a direct parallel.

          The other point is that this stuff has already been litigated and as McConnell pointed out in his floor speech, the President’s lawyers couldn’t even make a compelling enough case to persuade judges that Trump had appointed.

          Like

        • jnc:

          What was your take on the Democrats/progressives/leftists evidence of election fraud in 2016, 2004 and 2000?

          I paid no attention to them.

          2004 with the complaints about Karl Rove and voting machines in Ohio seems to be a direct parallel.

          A direct parallel to statistical anomalies and massive loosening of mail-in ballot regulations? How so?

          The other point is that this stuff has already been litigated…

          So was Nicole Brown-Simpson’s murder. Why do you think that unless something is established by a court of law to be true, it can’t have happened?

          Again, short of an outright admission by an active participant, what kind of evidence would you find compelling, or, if not compelling, at least enough to render suspicions to be not entirely delusional?

          Like

      • I do. Also the transparent elitism. Watched the NBC feed on the DC mayor implementing a curfew, saying only essential workers can be out.

        The only essential workers mentioned by name (and first): credentialed media. Everybody else, martial law for you.

        Then on to Lester Holt and some other reporter worrying about Trump’s video he was tweeting, saying they weren’t sure they could show it because Trump might lie and they would have to censor it.

        Twitter immediately locked his tweet of the video, with a blurb that it could not be liked, retweeted, or anything else because it might incite violence.

        Then Biden comes out and says “Trump needs to do something about this. Trump, do something about this.” And then Schumer and Pelosi both come out and say: “Trump, do something about this. Why isn’t Trump fixing this?”

        I mean, I get they are all ostensibly Trump supporters, but having all the major Democrats come out and say Trump needs to do something does not speak well of their leadership skills.

        Like

    • And call it disgraceful. White progressives burning down black-owned businesses, affordable housing, and chasing out some of the few retail jobs in a large number of poor neighborhoods–that’s not disgraceful. A bunch of LARPers storming the capitol and taking selfies in the rotunda and Nancy Pelosi’s office: now THAT’S disgraceful.

      Like

  3. Judging by the TV News coverage the networks are getting the season finale to the Trump Show that they have not so secretly wanted all along.

    Like

  4. Genuine question:

    Is there a substantive difference between Trump riling up supporters with claims that the election was stolen, and Dems riling up supporters with claims of “systemic” racism?

    Like

    • Or claims that Trump was essentially installed by Russia?

      Like

    • Is there a substantive difference between Trump riling up supporters with claims that the election was stolen, and Dems riling up supporters with claims of “systemic” racism?

      Of course there is. Racism within various American systems actually exists. The election theft claims of the President are definitively false.

      Like

      • Honest question, what American systems contain racism?

        Like

      • Mark:

        Of course there is. Racism within various American systems actually exists. The election theft claims of the President are definitively false.

        A couple of things here. First, the comparison you are drawing is not valid because you are comparing a general, non-specific assertion (racism exists in various systems) to a specific assertion (no 2020 election theft). The right comparison would either be the former to a claim that fraud effecting various American elections exists or the latter to, for example, a claim that George Floyd was a victim of systemic racism.

        Secondly, it is not clear to me whether your subtle change in wording (from “systemic racism” to “racism within various American systems”) is meaningful or not. Certainly there are racists that exist, and certainly they could well be operating within a system, and certainly they could be doing so in a racist manner. But that doesn’t equate to being systemically racist. So when you say that “racism within various American systems actually exists”, are you saying that systemic racism actually exists? If so, then what American system is systemically racist, and what is the evidence for it?

        Lastly, I think you overstate your case (just as when you say that there is “no evidence” for any of his election claims). I don’t think it is true that Trump’s election theft claims are “definitively false”. I would agree that they are not definitively true, but that is different from being definitively not true.

        Like

        • I think a lot of the claims from Trump and certainly Lin Wood and Rudy are definitively false or definitive not-proved, irrelevant, or unprovable.

          I also think there’s a lot of interest amongst critics to focus on those rather than eye-witness testimony, videos, and timelines of events that have observers being sent home for the counting to stop–and then resuming counting. Not allowing observers to actually observe. Certainly not much attention is being paid to the numerous statistical anomalies–though these do not provide direct evidence, finding them unusual and potential indicators of a non-trivial level of fraud is not outrageous.

          That being said, Trump does not make his claims in a way that sounds particularly credible.

          Like

  5. OTOH, the WaPo columnists who suggest treason here are not dealing with a legal full deck. Words are not measured by their resulting effect on others alone. The effect is not enough to make them fall outside the protections of the first amendment.

    I believe that even if the result of DJT’s words was predictable, taken in a vacuum the words did not call for violence. Rudy came closer, btw. I don’t even think his words would sustain a conviction of inciting violence, however, and certainly not treason.

    DJT’s phone call to the GA SecState could result in a state prosecution and a jury conviction that would be upheld on appeal. We may see that one played out. But the legal criminal blame on the people who broke into the Capitol is on them, not on the President, although informally I blame him for it, in the “but for” sense. But for his repeated claims for which teams of high priced lawyers could not offer a shred of evidence, and his invitation to supporters to mass in DC, and his speech to them this would not have happened. Lying is ethically reprehensible here but is not criminal.

    That crowd, regardless of Trump himself, appeared to be a mix of thousands of peaceful protestors and hundreds of rampaging looneys. As is always the case in big street demonstrations the crowd is good cover for the bad actors. As with protestors last summer, the bad actors require legal consequences [which you will recall was Biden’s view as well]. There were enough rampaging looneys to make me think the Inauguration should be a quiet affair televised from a secure indoor location, followed by an address from the Oval Office an hour later.

    Like

    • But for his repeated claims for which teams of high priced lawyers could not offer a shred of evidence

      Why don’t witness statements and affidavits count? There are literally thousands of them.

      Like

      • McWing:

        Why don’t witness statements and affidavits count? There are literally thousands of them.

        This.

        It is fine to say the evidence is weak, or not compelling, or questionable, or any number of other negative subjective judgments. But to simply say repeatedly and definitively that there is “no evidence” is plainly wrong.

        Like

        • There is a lot of conflation going on, with all the “baseless” and “evidence-free” modifiers being thrown into the mix.

          They mix up the question of evidence that “Trump really won and the election was stolen from him”, of which there is arguably none and couldn’t be without forensic audits and so forth, and evidence that there were irregularities, non-trivial fraud, observers not given access. Also evidence that votes were flipped without explanation, and that there were unusual last-minute spikes in votes, all going one direction (and this was true in the GA election as well, supposedly) without clear explanation.

          If nothing else, there’s certainly evidence that the election systems are exploitable and insufficiently secure or trustworthy. And the response from the media and (for now) the Democrats has not been persuasive. “Most secure election ever!” say experts. “No evidence of any fraud!”

          When, as you say, there is clearly evidence of irregularities and fraud. Might not make muster in court but there is certainly evidence.

          Like

      • It seems there is a reasonable amount of evidence, but the evidence is considered insufficient for injunctive relief. Or to justify a jury trial–which sometimes is a subjective analysis. And I can imagine there is often a high bar for overturning thousands of votes, as there probably should be.

        That is different than not offering a shred of evidence, however.

        Like

  6. Good read on yesterdays events in the light of what happened after 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing from Glen Greenwald:

    https://email.mg1.substack.com/c/eJxVkkuP2jAUhX8N2RHFznvhBYVhFNqEMkVDO5vIsU24YJwodsiYX19TqkqV_JDOOVdH8mdGjWi7wZK-08Z7HLWxvSBKTFoKY8TgjVoMNXCSxWmU4sTjJEgxSxsPdH0chLhSkMTrx0YCowY69QgjnCUJ9k4kRkeGWIK5yHCc5XGepmkucpTQMOJ50jw76chBKCZIp6Stewrck-RkTK9n4WKG1261rkpNVHJfj402lF181l2d0bt9g04-5ueg5uYk5oz2YDo551S1YtBOnoVr012Eu1fCbhDD7_Ynlpfi3EXVngXVvcDflpupCavgr34v9y-2Wu3u1XICelgHTvuszi9Tudqh7YoFLt-zsIQtbCZ-KEy5L6Lq_MsWMAEL38Hlgb3md75E9uOwPvNXeWtgk_vfF9Pb56bM6C3ejjYJm7UUmZT2a_Rjke2TVbHbf7np4-mjLDwgOMAoQEGKHIA49pF_VayJE0jkbRYF1xb99yDeQCaQEvRFO1czfUHY74b2Aah2_nVUYGwtFG2k4MQMo_DMk_4fknUrlBjcr-A1NQQlKAiiOEtjnEdPVA5uiBCOojDyXDHv3JQi_-j8BqAFyJU

    It is stunning to watch now as every War on Terror rhetorical tactic to justify civil liberties erosions is now being invoked in the name of combatting Trumpism, including the aggressive exploitation of the emotions triggered by yesterday’s events at the Capitol to accelerate their implementation and demonize dissent over the quickly formed consensus. The same framework used to assault civil liberties in the name of foreign terrorism is now being seamlessly applied — often by those who spent the last two decades objecting to it — to the threat posed by “domestic white supremacist terrorists,” the term preferred by liberal elites, especially after yesterday, for Trump supporters generally. In so many ways, yesterday was the liberals’ 9/11, as even the most sensible commentators among them are resorting to the most unhinged rhetoric available.

    Within hours of the Capitol being cleared, we heard truly radical proposals from numerous members of Congress. Senators and House members who objected to Electoral College certification, or questioned its legitimacy, should be formally accused of sedition and removed from expelled from the House if not prosecuted, argued Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), with other House members expressing support. Even those unarmed protesters who peacefully entered the Capitol should, many argued, be hunted by the FBI as domestic terrorists.

    Calls proliferated for the banning of the social media accounts of instigators and protest participants. Journalists and politicians cheered the decision by Facebook and Twitter to temporarily bar the President from using their service, and then cheered again when Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on Tuesday that the ban on Trump extended through Biden’s inauguration. Some journalists, such as CNN’s Oliver Darcy, complained that Facebook had not gone far enough, that more mass censorship was needed of right-wing voices. The once-radical 2006 Gingrich argument — that some opinions are too dangerous to allow to be expressed because they are pro-terrorist and insurrectionary — is now thriving, close to a consensus.

    Like

    • The thing with Greenwald is that history started on 9/11. It’s tiring plus he’s all for government helping if it’s for things he likes, healthcare, etc. I agree with arguement that all laws should be sunsetted and require repassage as if it were a new law. Hell, I’d support a 5 year sunset on every law. He thinks it’s the corrupt administration of power rather than the power itself being the problem.

      Like

    • This exactly matches what I’m seeing in social media:

      “In so many ways, yesterday was the liberals’ 9/11”

      Like

      • Don’t they realize the left has been doing the same shit all summer?

        Dumb question, I know. They are noble and the other guys are evil.

        Like

    • This is a really good piece.

      Like

  7. Apologies if someone else already linked to this, but this could be the best article Ben Domenech has ever written.

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/the-consequences-of-the-capitol-assault/#.X_dZsO66mNo.twitter

    The first is a comment from an apolitical friend who wandered into the room where the roiling crowd was on the screen in the early afternoon yesterday: “Is that Black Lives Matter?” No, it’s not — but also, it is. An apolitical viewer of the summer of 2020 would learn one distinct lesson: If you want to be heard, if you want to be listened to, you need to go into the streets, make a ruckus, set things on fire, and tear down icons of America. This disrespect will be welcomed, hailed, and supported if your cause is just and your motives are righteous.

    Just about everyone who showed up on Capitol Hill yesterday believed that about why they were there. The only difference between the horned man standing in the Senate chair or the smiling man hauling the speaker’s podium out the door and the fellow who attempted to tear down Andrew Jackson’s statue or the criminal who set fire to St. John’s Church is a matter of jersey color.

    The second is that blaming this on Donald Trump isn’t just too simplistic, it’s whistling past the graveyard of our norms. Of course, he egged on his crowd to go up to the Capitol and be loud and irritating. But he didn’t tell them to break down doors and crash the gates, and he didn’t need to. Blaming this on Trump assumes this type of attitude will go away when Trump himself does. That’s way too easy — it’s wishful thinking. The iconoclasm of the right is a real development, and it is here to stay. You’ll wish for the old man in the tricorn hat waving a Cato Constitution when you see the new right blasting statues with graffiti.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: