Category Archives: Ilana Mercer

Updated: Ilana In the Shower Sean Built

Aesthetics, Ancient History, Ilana Mercer, Israel

Here I am in the guest shower Sean built from scratch. (The link can be followed from the “Mercer Images” page.)
My choice of tiles was inspired by the ancient city of Caesarea in Israel, adjacent to the small village in which I grew up. Caesarea is a Roman city. It was built by Herod. Dusty blues, faded golds, luminescent whites—these are all colors one can find in the mosaics and marbles of this magnificent place.
You can read more about my inspiration here, and here. Or search the Internet for better visuals. The modern development is sheer luxury.
Click on the right-hand of the jpeg to enlarge.
This is Sean’s first tiling job (he thinks it’s his last, but I have news for him). It’s immaculate. (Is there anything this guy can’t achieve?!)
Have a Happy New Year.

Update #I: Due to the interest generated, here’s a wider angle on Sean’s handiwork.

On Idiot Ideologues Who Pan Paul

Elections 2008, Ilana Mercer, Individual Rights, Liberty, Private Property

A word about the tinny ideologues who pan Paul because he isn’t perfect: They hate freedom, plain and simple. They don’t know what it is to live without it. They are mollycoddled milksops. Here’s why:

I don’t agree with Paul about everything—I voiced my reservations about his understanding of Islam and the Muslim world in “Some Advice for Ron Paul.”

Without going into it, I don’t much care for his position on abortion. However, unlike Paul’s detractors, I happen to know what living without freedom is like. Paul is as close to The Good Life we could hope to come. Only idiots encased in an armor of worthless ideology—worthless because it exists in the arid arena of their minds, not on earth—would turn their noses up at the prospect of Paul.

Let me share with you a little something: I left South Africa with the proceeds from the sale of my apartment stashed in the soles of my shoes. Had I been apprehended smuggling my property out of that country, I’d have gone to jail with my husband. We both stood taller on that trip. As I am in the habit of sending funds to family, I’ve seen firsthand the same creeping oppression sneak-up on Americans. We’ve already seen the South-African model of detention-without-trial slowly become part of the American legal landscape.

I love life and liberty. Almost more than anything I want to keep what is mine—not to pay the mafia shakedown fee levied on my home (property tax), which means I can never really own my abode, and that ownership is merely nominal. When such prospects loom, I seize them. Being an individualist who loves life and liberty means seizing the day; it means that when one encounters a man whose understanding of freedom and individual rights approximates—if not parallels—your own, you seize the moment.

This is not to say one ought to become a mindless “Paulbearer.” Some have; I have not. (More criticism of Paul’s position on immigration is in “Ron Paul’s Electability.”) Nor does it mean that one turns into an asinine detractor, while deluding oneself that rejecting imperfection is tantamount to a show of principle. What the love of liberty means is seizing the best opportunity at a revolution one has. Those who stand on the sidelines are pussies, and worse, slaves to abstractions.

Update: Barely a Blog friend Steven Browne has continued the thread here. Lest I be identified with the treason faction of the liberty movement—the rank pinkos who promote open borders to the detriment of liberty and property in the US—let me add that Dr. Paul is not sufficiently restrictionist on immigration. As I’ve written, “When government orchestrates an unfettered movement of people into an interventionist state, in which the rights to property, free association, and self defense are already heavily circumscribed by the state—it is guilty of unadulterated social engineering, central planning, and worse.” Aiding and abetting this is philosophical treason.
Our Immigration Archive, in which I’ve demolished most of the feeble arguments advanced by those who are laissez faire on immigration. Admittedly, if one is an anarchist, a meaningless position, then the open-borders stance is the only principled one. But since I’m not a kook (anarchist), but belong to the respectable classical liberal tradition, my position is perfectly congruent philosophically.

Paul was wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. As I’ve said previously, our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one, given that Muslims today are at the center of practically every conflict across the world. The received leftist wisdom that the Arabs were (and remain) hapless and helpless victims of the West is false and patronizing. As scholars such as Efraim and Inari Karsh have shown, “Middle Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions and patterns of behavior rather than an externally imposed dictate.”

Ultimately, a rational suspicion of power, upon which libertarians pride themselves, must be predicated on distrusting all power, not only American power.

On The George Putnam Show (More About a Great American)

America, Celebrity, Elections 2008, Ilana Mercer, Ilana On Radio & TV, Media

Tomorrow (Oct. 9, 2007) I will be on George Putnam’s nationally syndicated show, Talk Back (more about Mr. Putnam here as well). It is “distributed nationwide on the Cable Radio Network.” I’ll be on from 1:30 to 1:58 PT.

Updated (Oct 9, 2007): I’m hugely privileged to have spoken fleetingly with a great and brilliant American. (Excuse the adjectival banality, but words fail me here.) Mr. Putnam is a national treasure, who should be on TV to remind Americans how incisive, sonorous and super smart some of their media mavens used to be. (Now none of them are.) I was also touched by Mr. Putnam’s graciousness about me and my work. This is a man whose counsel Nixon and Reagan sought, and who “has a star on the Hollywood Boulevard ‘Walk of Fame.’” Again, an honor. (I did get a chuckle out of Mr. Putnam when I said that at www.ilanamercer.com, his listeners could read columns as funny and as well-written as Ann Coulter’s, only principled. Incidentally, I endorsed Ron Paul as the hope for America; Mr. Putnam agreed enthusiastically and expansively.

Roger Grace wrote a series of columns about the great man. Here is one.

George Putnam: the Voice That Keeps Booming

By ROGER M. GRACE

In a 1984 “Salute to KTTV’s 35th Anniversary,” former President Richard Nixon, on videotape, said of veteran Los Angeles newscaster George Putnam:

“He won the admiration and respect of millions of people in Southern California due to the fact that everybody could count on him to say exactly what he believed, whether it was popular or not. Some people didn’t like what he said; some people liked what he said. But everybody listened to George Putnam. That is why he has been one of the most influential commentators of our times.”

At the time of that program, Putnam was weekend anchor at KTTV, after having been off television for a spell. The station’s news director publicly stated when he brought Putnam back on board that people told him he was nuts.

Putnam no longer enjoyed the popularity he had in the 1950s and into the early 1960s. Nonetheless, unalterable is the fact of Putnam’s unparalleled attainment when his career was at its zenith. He was a powerhouse. Among those who sought his counsel back then was Nixon.

Putnam is associated in the minds of many with Channel 11. However, in the mid-1960s, he was wooed away by KTLA, Channel 5, located one block west of KTTV on Sunset Boulevard. Channel 11 later enticed him back, and Putnam was again turning east from Van Ness into the KTTV lot. KTLA once more lured Putnam away in the early 1970s, and he was again turning west from Van Ness. (He was now doing his twice-nightly news show, as well as “Talk Back,” with viewers phoning in.)

When his high-priced contract expired, it was not renewed. Putnam’s style, once viewed as one which evinced enthusiasm, was now perceived as affected and passe. He worked for awhile at KHJ and KCOP, at one point doing a two-man chat show with Mort Sahl.

In 1976, Putnam returned to radio, where he got his start in 1934. During the 1950s, he had been heard on KFI (the NBC affiliate), later on KABC-AM (as was fellow KTTV news personality Paul Coates). His new home, however, was not so prestigious. It was KIEV, a station in Glendale that was little known outside that burgh. The station, licensed by the Federal Radio Commission in 1932, had its dedicatory program on Feb. 11, 1933. It broadcast from the basement of the Glendale Hotel, receiving free rent in exchange for advertising. It began broadcasting at a meager 100 watts, but worked its way up to 250 watts the next year. It was at 5,000 watts when Putnam got there with his “Talk Back” show.

Putnam gave the theretofore obscure station credibility, and enabled it to attract other top personalities, such as Mr. Blackwell. For years, Putnam’s broadcasts emanated each noontime from the bottom level of the Arco Plaza, in downtown Los Angeles. Lunchtime shoppers could bob in to join the studio audience.

The station on Jan. 1, 2001, acquired the abandoned call letters of a better known station, KRLA. That year, Putnam left his broadcasting home after 27 years when the station wanted to air his commentaries during the week, but relegate his call-in show to weekends.

But that did not end Putnam’s career in broadcasting. At age 88, he’s still broadcasting, his new venue being KPLS, a right-wing station in Orange County.

In 1995, at the local Emmy awards ceremony, Putnam was given the Governors’ Award for career achievement. He has a star on the Hollywood Boulevard “Walk of Fame.”

An article in the April 20, 1956 issue of TV Radio Life observed: “Some people say he is hammy. Others say he is the best in the field.”

He was—and is—a ham. Whether he was the “best in the field” may be debated. My own local journalistic “heroes” from that supplemental news medium known as television—supplemental to newspapers, that is—are Clete Roberts, Bill Stout and Paul Coates.

Though there was bravado to his manner, he was far from a Ted Baxter. He was informed.

In offering “One Reporter’s Opinion,” he did not merely read words crafted by another; the opinion was his, the words were his.

I do find fault, however, with the lack of clear demarcation during Putnam’s early days on L.A. television between his role as a reporter and as a commentator. He did, in my view, assume the role of an advocate in contexts where journalistic ethics would have dictated neutrality.

But this cannot be denied:

There has never been a more popular and influential newsman in Los Angeles television than Putnam. He’s a legend.

WHY SUPPORT ILANAMERCER.COM (Beating Jon Stewart To Calling The Media’s Bluff)

America, Barely A Blog, Economy, Elections 2008, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, IMMIGRATION, Inflation, Iraq, Israel, Journalism, Liberty, Media

After describing me and my work as fiercely independent and contrarian, a well-known talk-show host recently quipped: “But you are doing alright, aren’t you?”

I was taken aback. Was it not obvious that this was not the case? Was it not plain to see that other than WorldNetDaily.com—whose willingness to feature their longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, “Return To Reason” came to an abrupt end in April, 2016—most media pack animals, including libertarians, would not brook commentary that didn’t adhere to accepted lines? Was it not apparent that while the praise for the work on this site has come from the best and the brightest, publishers and syndicators were not pounding on IlanaMercer.com’s pixelated doors?

I came out with my first editorial in opposition to the war in Iraq in September 2002. My predictions have all come to pass. Before that, the welcoming invitations from movers and shakers among the conservative media had been trickling in, steady and nice. The syndicator also came calling. After that, everything dried up. And it has remained parched for years. Cultivating those contacts could have been lucrative, but would have come at the price of principle. I was not going to cheer for an unjust war—not against Iraq or Lebanon. At the same time, I did not intend to pacify libertarians (or paleos) by joining in their delegitimization of Israel. Or by confining my suspicion of state power to the American state, while ignoring Islam, a system that strives to establish a state wherever it takes hold, and whose religionists are at the center of practically every conflict in the world today. That would have been irrational and in defiance of reality and history.

Neither was I willing to affirm the libertarian catechism about mass immigration. When government orchestrates an unfettered movement of people into an interventionist state, in which the rights to property, free association, and self defense are heavily circumscribed by the state—it is guilty of unadulterated social engineering, central planning, and worse. State officials who arrest Americans for defending their country against this onslaught are guilty of treason. We said it here. We stayed on topic, offering arguments that so far have remained unchallenged.

The therapeutic state and the trend toward medicalizing misbehavior, a trend conservatives now embrace, remained in our sights. We also pointed out singularly that feminism has entered a new phase: “Feminists once aimed to unseat men, now they are actively engaged in queering them.” The feminization of society is everywhere apparent, as we’ve illustrated, with vivid descriptions of “the many females manning the front desks on cable, Y chromosome carriers included, [who] do their daily bit to entrench a shift from hard to soft-news stories.”

Bush gave implicit consent to his bought buddies, the Turks, to conduct covert operations in Iraqi Kurdistan, home of a people against whom the Turks have “waged systematic ethnocide.” Oblivious to the significance of Bush’s betrayal, the malpracticing media barely covered these developments. IlanaMercer.com did—with a vengeance.

As the dollar continued its precipitous decline, the financial media continued to talk up the stock exchange blithely. But even these cogs in what we’ve dubbed the “Military-Media-Industrial-Congressional-Complex” failed to suppress the facts about the promiscuous money printing underway and the resulting “inflation.” IlanaMercer.com beat them to it by weeks.

Cut to the cloying coverage of the 2008 elections. We’ll discount the mediacrats and their masters in Washington; mainstream media can’t even call a caucus. The liberty community, however, divided broadly into those who panned Ron Paul and those who pandered to his every word. Of these, Beltway libertarians have missed the boat completely. At the slightest upset they dissed and distanced themselves from Paul, and have proven that in their libertarianism lite, they remain utterly divorced from the groundswell Paul has ignited.

Here on IlanaMercer.com we espouse the superlatively reasonable philosophy of classical liberalism, Ludwig von Mises’. With respect to Ron Paul, I’ve adopted the only position I know: unaffiliated and independent. Readers can have confidence in this columnist, as they know that she is “temperamentally unsuited to obedience.” Thus, while I’ve endorsed Ron Paul, aspects of his philosophy and strategy have not escaped my scrutiny. Those who come to this space on cyberspace trust me to scrutinize yet advise. And what has been my qualified advice? Paul’s not perfect (who is?), but his “vision is as close to The Good Life as we could hope to come in the current ideological climate. Only tinny ideologues encased in worthless ideological armor—worthless because it exists in the arid arena of their minds, not on earth—would turn their noses up at the prospect of Paul.” The illustrious John Derbyshire of “National Review” called it “The Pauline Gospel at its Best.” (Updated: February 3, 2008)

As we learned late in April of 2008, “In the land of the free and home of the brave hundreds of children can be rounded up and removed from their families based on a hunch or a hoax. No hue and cry will ensue—not from professional civil libertarians, nor from members of the unwatchful dogs in the media, or from presidential candidates vying to uphold—or is it just to hold—the Constitution.”

As was “the rigor-mortis riddled Right” silent when Texas rangers removed over 417 children from the sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

I duly fingered “the kangaroo court of Judge Barbara L. Walther, for whom a tip from a complainant who never materialized constitutes probable cause.” And I reminded forgetful Americans that the Sixth Amendment applied equally to people of whom they disapproved:

“The rules of evidence have been revised in post-constitutional America. If you thought that wrenching babes from their moms ought to be predicated on the testimony of a competent, credible witness, you were wrong. And you were utterly insane if you imagined the defendants ought to get to confront the witness against them in a trial before being punished.”

And:

“In post-constitutional America the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures certainly no longer applies uniformly. Ditto due process. Creepy people, for whom the goons in government have been gunning, are as good as convicted criminals. In the case of the FLDS cult’s kids, the burden of proof has been shifted from the state to its victims.”

They’re Coming For Your Kids!” managed to get a word in about “misplaced compassion” in “sentimental, sensation-driven America”:

“The country cried with Ellen DeGeneres as the comedian slobbered on camera, and begged the ‘Mutts and Moms’ canine adoption agency to return to friends a terrier the agency had removed.” Why was “no member of the American Idiocracy shedding a tear for tots torn from their loving mothers?”

It’s all well and good for large libertarian websites and think tanks to tout their courage as they sally forth from the security of well-established, well-frequented, and reasonably well-funded establishments. Not so when one is running a solo operation, with limited funds and little support. Yet IlanaMercer.com was recently ranked by the “Intellectual Conservative as 61st out of the top 131 conservative-cum-libertarian websites.

THE WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT (January 31, 2009): The economy is not the only object of cooling; the weather appears to be freezing over too. This is why the gabbling, hot-and-bothered Al Gore has substituted “global warming” with the more versatile “climate change.”

Here at the Weather Underground (and @ilanamercer.com), I’ve encapsulated the Gorian illogic thus:

“Evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate Chicken Littles enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.”

As Karl Popper reminded us, “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is,” of course, “non-scientific.” What eco-idiots have done is to immunize the theory of global warming against the dangers of scientific refutation.

LET THE SUNSHINE IN. Readers of Barely A Blog were, moreover, introduced, before most in the mainstream, to the concept of “sunspot activity.” In March of 2007, I published an article written exclusively for BAB by N. Baldwin, Jr. It was based on our friend’s book, “Global Warming: CO2, SunSpots, or Politics?

The decrease in sunspot activity—the sun having entered what appears to be a period of solar inactivity, resulting in all likelihood in global cooling—was reported a year and a half later by “Space Daily.” Fully two years after our report, sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions have entered the overheated debate about the climate.

Having failed their readers time-and-again, the establishment media is struggling to survive. Good. Why support a source of propaganda that blows hot air about global warming and is cool to the market economy, the source of our splendid standard of living? Why contribute to the success of major media that have failed miserably and consistently to predict the outcomes of unjust wars, or warn ahead-of-time of the economic havoc wreaked by profligate administrations and their printing press?

I.O.U.S.A.” (February 28, 2009): Speaking of the printing presses, which are now running non-stop: Just the other day, MSNBC found the word “debt” in the dictionary. Michael Smerconish—who calls himself conservative, but isn’t—was asked by Obamahead David Schuster whether our foreign debtors might call it quits and stop funding the orgy.

Smerconish looked surprised, and said he had no idea, which was honest enough. Then he quickly padded that enormous ego by adding: Let nobody claim he has an idea, or that he foresaw the current crisis.

When you shut serious libertarians (not libertarians lite like Neal Boortz and Treason Magazine) out of the discourse, you are also able to pretend they don’t exist and have not been warning of a meltdown. (And then steal their insights to present to mainstream when the time is ripe.)

This column was warning in 2003, if not earlier, of the consequences of endless debt, credit expansion, and the dangers of hyperinflation. As did I explain to those who bothered to listen that production, not credit-fueled consumption, was whence came wealth. An example is “Bring ‘Em Home, Mr. Bush”:

“…This means we’re into Keynesian deficit spending—the government is borrowing and inflating the money supply to fund its profligacy, a practice that will accelerate the depreciation of the dollar, and may even lead to the horror of hyperinflation.”

Here I am again, in April of 2003 (Wartime Socialism), sounding the alarm over Dubya’s debauchery:

The finances for the war, of course, will come from the private economy. For every dollar the government spends, a dollar is suctioned from you and me. For every new smiling military recruit sitting pretty with a home, a porch, and a pension, some poor sod will join the army of (nine million) unemployed.

Given its debt, the U.S. government is fast becoming a bad risk as a borrower. To finance the war, then, it’ll have to steal over and above the usual call of duty. Unlike ‘The Shrub’ currently in power, Ronald Reagan understood a thing or two. He said this: ‘The truth is that inflation is caused by government. It’s caused by government spending more than it takes in, and it will go away just as soon as government stops doing that.'”

More precisely, inflation is an increase in the money supply by the government. Having adopted deficit spending as an article of faith, Bush will call on the Federal Reserve and the printing press to print money to pay the costs of the war. The endemic price hikes and economic distortions that’ll follow are but a by-product of this legalized counterfeiting.

Reports of freshly minted dollars making their way from the Federal Reserve Bank to millions of Iraqis, now on the U.S. payroll, suggest that the money market is already being flooded. The first counterfeit down payment on the war will soon be wending its way into the coffers of the selected war contractors and their employees.

So why is this so bad? Doesn’t more paper money make us all richer?

No, it doesn’t. Real wealth is created only by the production and consumption not of paper money, but of products. An abundance of goods, not money income, is what makes for an increase in wealth.

(March 26, 2009): Since the crowning of Obama, Republicans have begun to cultivate a convenient awareness of the weight of the federal debt on the American economy.

Penned in 2007, my “Inflation 101 For Women Pundits And Other Tyrants” put the burden Dubya’s “national debt of $9 trillion” had placed on “America’s $12.98-trillion economy” in perspective:

As the American national debt stands, we would not be admitted into the company of socialists: The European Union. The EU expects member nations to hold debt below 60 percent of GDP.

Two years later, in March 26, 2009, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) claims the same, and makes headlines in The Hill.

A little late, don’t you think?!

December 15, 2009: What are you supporting? A marginalized voice that beats most well-funded group thinkers out there in coverage and commentary.

On the topic of those fattened collectivists: Neil Cavuto has begun, lately (on December 11, 2009, to be precise), to cover the discrepancy between the respective incomes of workers employed in the private vs. the parasitical sector. Cavuto got his column “idea” from USA-Today data.

I beat both entities to it.

Let’s see, when was “Life in the Oink Sector” written? September 25, 2009. That column was cited by the New York Times’ “Economix” blog. Needless to say, the Times would never ever have bothered to apprise its readers of the cost “of these pampered pigs”:

“There are upward of 20 million of these pampered pigs, hogging 87,000 different institutions in government and public education, where the payrolls are always lard-laden in comparison to private-economy paysheets.”

Ultimately, what neither the Times nor Cavuto will ever do for you is speak to the economic-cum-moral principles that differentiate the voluntary sector from the work force that uses FORCE to keep itself larded up.

April 16, 2010: With few exceptions, no journalistic outlet in the free world has been prepared to seriously and consistently report on the ongoing slaughter of South Africa’s white farmers—and, increasingly, of white ethnics in general-–in ways that would do Shaka Zulu proud.

America’s airheads and idiots find publishers for their mindless meandering. This is not the case with the groundbreaking release, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

A culmination of years of writing and thinking about my South African homeland, RIP, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is topped and tailed with hard evidence that allows conclusions vis-à-vis the aggregate characteristics of the blood-soaked society for which the sainted Mandela is praised in the West. It the definitive account, factual and philosophical, about what has befallen South Africa since democracy.

April 17, 2013: BEATING JON STEWART TO CALLING THE MEDIA’S BLUFF. Over the course of a few hours today (April 17), the hysterical and histrionic US media—front men and women for CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the rest—had gone from asserting the arrest of a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, to screening amateur images of their fantasy felon, to decamping to the courthouse in expectation of an arraignment, to confessing without a smidgen of shame that nothing of the sort had transpired.

We lied. OK, we fibbed. Let’s move on. Quick. There is to be no meta reporting about the misreporting.

“No arrests in Boston bombing.”

How ironic, then, that readers have demanded that I justify, even atone, for my assessment of the sum-total of one coequal (female) branch of the media-military-congressional complex:

“Big hair, an overbite, botox and mind-numbing banalities.”

You’d have saved time—and spared yourself the confusion generated on the Colosseum of cretins that is American mainstream media—had you, my reader, come straight to Barely A Blog for news and commentary served up straight. Think about it: Jon Stewart, a comedian who cleaves to fact (if not to liberty’s principles), only aired the truth later that evening.

Barely a Blog beat Jon Stewart to it. BAB called the media’s bluff @ 11:20 am on that day (April 17).

So who’s looking out for you?

The role of the contrarian who cleaves to the natural laws of economics and justice is even more crucial in times of crisis. Centuries ago, artists—among other creative folks—relied on discerning patrons to keep their work alive. Nothing has changed.

Mainstream intelligentsia is dishing out dirt, as usual. It is not only festooned with arrogant liars, but, worse: intellectual sloths, bereft of the slightest affinity for reality, much less natural law. Our side can begin to gain a rightful market share in the miasma that is the market place of ideas. But we need to work overtime at supporting and disseminating the truth, while dissociating from the dreck. Out of chaos, some new, not-necessarily bad, order may just emerge.

So, if you have not yet signed up for the Mercer weekly e-newsletter, you can do so HERE. If you value my work and wish me to continue producing it despite ever-diminishing returns, please support the sites and their proprietor, and, of course, purchase a copy of Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and review the book on Amazon.

(In reply to the frequent requests for feature updates: ILANAMERCER.COM AND BARELY A BLOG are low- or close-to-no-budget operations, written and “programed” by me, with the help of donations from a few, generous readers. Unless our fortunes change here—not least that this scribe is no longer the sole “programer”—we’ll have to make do with the BAB format and features are they stands, I’m afraid.)

You, the reader, are my mainstay. I know you value the ability to come to a place in cyberspace where you’re heard, challenged, entertained—even regaled—and (gently) guided. But understand: This is hard work. It cannot be done without your assistance.

As always, I appreciate your generous support during these hard times.

ILANA

Click Here to Make a One-Time Donation of Your Choice