Well… Bye!

A university economics professor has apparently soiled himself at the thought that students at the University of Texas-Austin (UT) will be allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms by carrying concealed weapons on campus, so he has huffily submitted his resignation to the school.

“As much as I have loved the experience of teaching and introducing these students to economics at the university, I have decided not to continue,” economics professor Daniel Hamermesh said in a letter to university administrators this week. “With a huge group of students my perception is that the risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed-carry law.”

What I find instructive about this sniveling missive is the fear for his own safety. He’s afraid his students would shoot him. Why is that? Is he that horrible of a teacher? Is he cruel? Is he unfair? Why would any student want to shoot him?

And more importantly, if a student did want to shoot him, would a law banning concealed carry on campus stop him or her? Given the fact that guns were banned on the Virginia Tech campus when Seung-Hui Cho committed his atrocity, I doubt it.

Additionally, I would think that this particular pusillanimous weasel would prefer a legally armed student in his class to hide behind in case a disgruntled cretin does decide to take his impotent rage out on the professor. Even if he doesn’t  have enough testicular fortitude to carry a tool of self defense and take responsibility for his own safety, one would think he would have enough common sense to rejoice at the thought that someone in his class could act in that capacity! But no…

Not this weasel.

I cannot believe that I am the only potential or current faculty member who is aware of and disturbed by this heightened risk. As I wrote on my blog several years ago, no doubt this law will make it more difficult to attract faculty, especially those who are willing and able to teach large groups of students.

You can’t believe that other educated, intelligent, rational adults wouldn’t project their own insecurities onto law-abiding adults, who choose to peaceably exercise their rights? You can’t believe that other faculty members don’t think so little of themselves, that they would publicize their paranoia about being shot by a student? You can’t believe that other educators respect their students as rational adults and law-abiding citizens, while you think so little of them and yourself that you would quit your job over a law that allows them to exercise their rights?

Luckily for his students and any future classes this pathetic coward may have taught, he’s moving to Australia to teach in a “gun-free” environment.

We say, “See ya!” You won’t be missed.

The actual copy of the letter can be found here.


Vehi She’amda

It has been a difficult few of weeks for my people.  Stabbings, Shootings, Beatings.  Babies in car-seats hammered  by stone and sliced by glass and steel.  It is far from over.

The perpetrators name their children after murderers of innocents.  They spit on, and laugh at  the wounded. They wheedle their excuses to the English-speaking world, and roar in prideful blood-lust to their own.

The government response is schizophrenic at best.  Often, it emboldens the savages and bares the innocent to them.  More worried about how they are perceived by that smug imbecile in the White House, the pompous EU, or their leftist domestic press, than the mounting toll of maiming and death borne by their own people, they vacillate.

The powerful and influential abroad declare moral-equivalence between attacker and victim.  Mostly, the world looks away.

Yishmael and Edom, working in tandem.

Jewish blood, as always, is cheap.

Well, Hashem makes difficult lessons for us, but nothing we cannot withstand, learn from, or surmount.  Nothing.   Nothing.

Am Yisrael Chai.

וְהִיא שֶׁעָמְדָה לַאֲבוֹתֵיֽנוּ וְלָנֽוּ. שֶׁלֹא אֶחָד בִּלְבָד, עָמַד עָלֵיֽנוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵנֽוּ. אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּכָל דּוֹרוָדוֹר, עוֹמְדִים עָלֵיֽנוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵנֽוּ. וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַצִּילֵנוּ מִיָּדָם

Vehi She’amda, La’avotainu Velanu Shelo Echad Bilvad, Amad Aleinu Lechaloteinu Ela Sheb’chol Dor VaDor Omdim Aleinu Lechaloteinu V’HaKadosh Baruch Hu Matzilenu Miyadam.

And this (Hashem’s blessings and the Torah) is what kept our fathers and what keeps us surviving. For, not only one arose and tried to destroy us, rather in every generation they try to destroy us, and Hashem saves us from their hands.


They’re Finally Being Honest

The Washington Post editorial page editor is finally being honest about the liberals’ gun control agenda. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt has penned… or I should say spewed his uninformed opinion entitled, “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

This is how you know a leftard is about to soil his unmentionables – when he “courageously” challenges the big, bad NRA from the safety and comfort of his computer – while advocating what eventually would lead to civil war in this country.


Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thing doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

What, REALLY? You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your assertion that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie. And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large?

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

Tell us why you think that criminals will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn that gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013.  Know now many drowned? 568.  Know how many died in a fire? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances beat the 100,000 who Fred claims get shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

Perhaps we should, but you might want to sit out the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.


He’s anything but a “well-regulated” writer

It seems that one Adam Gopnik, a distinctly artsy-craftsy type, has himself a long-time sinecure at the New Yorker.

It also seems he now considers himself qualified to sling bombast to the effect that “the second amendment is a gun control amendment.”

Further, it seems is absolutely obvious that he feels free to pontificate without any knowledge of what the words “well-regulated” meant to the 18th century writers of the Bill of Rights. AND he pompously blats his fetid opinions without even having a sufficient grasp of grammar to realize that the words “well-regulated” in the amendment don’t refer to firearms, but to the militia.

Must be nice to get and hold such a plumb job with such a high-status publication without actually having to know anything about your topic, or even about how to read a simple English phrase.


Rally in Roseburg, Oregon — this Friday morning

Crossposted from Living Freedom:

HEADS UP! Obama’s headed to Roseburg, Oregon, on Friday to continue politicizing the UCC murders for the sake of his anti-gun agenda. Locals and other activists are responding with a rally telling the Hoplophobe in Chief that he and his anti-rights agenda aren’t welcome in rural Oregon.

If you’re in the area and can attend, please send reports and photos. I’ll gladly post them here.

(Tip o’ hat to LS for the word)


Am I a Calzone?

No, I don’t mean the food thingy, I mean the person, as in Ron Calzone.

Ron Calzone is a citizen, a mere mortal citizen. Well, a regular citizen with an incredible energy level. He raises horses and cattle and has a small manufacturing business. And then there is his side line. In his “spare” time Ron goes to Jefferson City to talk to legislators. Ron talks to them from a Constitutional viewpoint. He opposes things like eminent domain, and about anything that gives government more control over people lives or their property. He talks to legislators about having good firearms laws, that protect ownership and their owners. And he is very good at it. He is part of a group in Missouri called Missouri First. Ron is often in Jefferson City at the Capitol wearing down the leather on his shoes. Now not every citizen can get off work to go to Jefferson City to testify before a committee when the bills they are most interested in either seeing go through or stopped dead are to be heard. In those cases Missouri First has come up with something very ingenious, called Liberty Tools. People that are subscribed to their mailing list will be sent a notice when a bill of interest is about to be heard, and if you can’t go, you can fill out your witness statement online, MoFirst will print it off and take it to the hearing FOR YOU. Then your Representatives and Senators can get online and see which of their constituents weighed in on it. Either for or against, doesn’t matter, the choice you made, your comments will be there in the liberty tools section. Even if your vote and comment go the opposite of what Missouri First is recommending, it will be there. Pretty nifty huh? I heard from a very reliable source who was in a hearing for a Missouri Firearms Freedom act bill that Ron showed with a stack of witness forms about 18 inches or so high from people in Missouri who were in favor of it. That is a LOT of input.

So what’s the problem? Sounds like a stand up guy, right? I mean he takes time off from his own business, farm and family to go to Jefferson City and do what groups are always urging their members to do, get involved, go talk to legislators, send emails, write letters, make phone calls. He represents those that can’t be there but want their voice heard with piles of witness forms at hearings. Good stuff for citizens right? What could go wrong?

Well, he is good at being heard. And that has resulted in angering some politicians. Let’s look at a couple things.

When Sen. Kevin Engler thought he was a shoe in for position of the Senate’s President pro tem.

In 2010, along with multitude of Tea Party and Patriot group members, I also quite vocally opposed the election of Senator Engler, who was the majority floor leader, to the position of the Senate’s president pro tem. For the first time in decades, the Senate declined to make the majority floor leader their next president pro tem.

Right, Engler didn’t get it, and he was livid.

Now let’s uncover just a couple more skeletons. This one named Ron Richards. Ron was Floor Majority leader in the house at one time. That time would be 2013 and what was at stake was a fabulous bill called the Second Amendment Protection act. Now Ronnie has proudly proclaimed his pro Second Amendment status. He demonstrated this by running away from this bill screaming like a little girl. Actually I’ve seen some girls with bigger, never mind. Anyway, apparently Ron was upset that the bill would prevent newspapers from being able to publish the names of gun owners, you know, like they have in other states. But he promised he would sponsor an even better bill and get it passed. What can you say, he’s a RINO in Missouri. It’s two years later, and still not done. Then there was that time back in 2010 when Ron fought a bill that then Speaker of the house Ron Richards wanted, later the Missouri Supreme court struck it down, so guess Mr. Calzone was correct after all.

Then just recently, Rep. John Diehl was up to be Speaker of the House. Missouri First took the position that he would not be a good speaker, and set his legislation contact list to calling their elected Representatives to ask that they pick someone else other than a “bad Diehl”. The people did the contacting but the House still elected him speaker. Though they did get rid of him after he was caught in a big sex scandal. Oh well.

So what does all this have to do with the price of Israeli coffee in America?

Well this is where it gets really interesting.

A little more background. The Governor of Missouri is Jay Nixon, anti-gun. He’s the one that did the best barry impersonation “The police acted stupidly” when the Police officer shot thug Michael Brown. Jay promised swift justice for Michael. Actually, I think justice had probably already been done, but that was Jay’s first response. His second was to prevent the National guard from stopping the rioting after he illegally called them in before the riot started. So that’s Jay.

Governor Jay is the one who appointed the six members of the Missouri ethics commission. I’m sure they are all up to Jay’s demanding “standards”. Chuckle.

From the MoFirst website:

MEC says about their mission: “The MEC serves the public interest by promoting and maintaining transparency, accountability, and compliance with campaign finance, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.”The Ethics Commission claims they have no responsibility to consider constitutional arguments that might otherwise be presented in a defense against complaints.While it’s true that MEC has no authority to declare a statute unconstitutional like a real court of law would, they do have a responsibility to support the Constitution, so they should actually at least be considering the constitutional implications of various interpretations of statutes relating to a complaint. In other words, if there are two possible ways to interpret a statute – one is constitutional and the other is not – they should feel obligated to choose the constitutional approach. They do not feel thus constrained, however, and that does not bode well for our free speech rights.

Ready for the juicy stuff?

At the September 3, 2015, hearing before the Missouri Ethics Commission, a witness called by the Commission’s own attorney revealed during sworn testimony a very interesting and very telling fact. The testimony was that Representative Kevin Engler and Senator Ron Richard had talked to the Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants (MSGC), asking them if they had any interest in my status as a lobbyist. After that, MSGC filed a complaint against me with the Ethics Commission.

Only natural persons are allowed to file with the Ethics (guffaw) commission. And within five days they were to have told Ron who his accusers were. So SEVENTY-FOUR DAYS later the Missouri Ethics (yes, I am having trouble typing that with a straight face) commission told Mr. Calzone who had filed the complaint against him. And it wasn’t a person. In fact the lawyer that drew up the complaint made it clear that the filing entity wasn’t a person.

What is the fallout? Ron has been accused of being a lobbyist. That he hasn’t registered and paid the $10 fee, and hasn’t filled out the necessary paperwork. So that results in a thousand dollar fine. If he persists, he could face jail time.

Ready for the punch line? Ron isn’t a lobbyist. He is a citizen, working with other citizens and with other freedom minded groups. He is paid NO money for going to Jefferson City, and he buys the legislators no gifts, no meals. If he’s a lobbyist? He stinks at it.

That’s what makes this so ugly to me. This is an attempt to keep mere citizens from suiting up and showing up to speak to legislators. At one time this was something I did, and not long ago, I was one of two people tapped to be the citizens showing up to talk to legislators on behalf of a group of combined Second Amendment groups. I could have been in Ron’s boots. This is an attempt to stifle free speech and shut out influence of mere citizens from bothering the elected officials. That and some ugly political payback.

At a time when more than ever citizens need to be involved in the political process in an effort to protect our rights this is a very bad thing. If other states should begin to consider such actions? Citizens need to have access to their elected officials, whether it’s showing up themselves, or if they can’t, filling out a online form to be presented at a hearing, they need to be involved. We all need to be suiting up and showing up in whatever capacity we can.

Am I a Calzone? I hope so.

Politics always take an interest in you
Politics always take an interest in you


Who rules over you?
Who rules over you?

Poll: Most effective way to stop mass public shootings

This week’s TZP poll asks “What’s the most effective way to stop mass public shootings?”

I should add that in coming up with that question I have no expectation (unlike our starry-eyed anti-gunner “friends”) that we can prevent all violent, crazy jerks from being violent, crazy jerks. Feel free to interpret “stop” to mean either “discourage creeps from even trying it” or “end it — NOW.”

You can only choose one option in this poll, but I know your thoughts are likely to be much more nuanced. So as always feel free to comment away!


Four of the best comments on the Oregon campus shooting

Forget the pathetic little mama’s-boy murderer and remember Chris Mintz, the man who charged straight at him.


Stop pretending that your “commonsense” anti-gunnery will end mass shootings. Although this piece by Trevor Burrus advocates paying more attention to mental illness — a dubious proposition when applied to gun owners in this age when 25% of the population is considered “mentally ill” — it also contains some questions we should ask everybody who wants more gun laws:

Perhaps you think all guns should be confiscated. Okay, tell us how you will do that without stormtroopers roaming the country systematically violating our Fourth Amendment rights in a way that makes Donald Trump’s call for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants look like taking a census. …

Perhaps you think that all guns should be registered and licensed. Again, explain how you will do that without a battalion of stormtroopers kicking down doors. Sure, some people will voluntarily register their guns, but they are unlikely to be criminals or would-be mass shooters.


Time to talk about gun-free zones.

As details emerge, it’s clear some that Umpqua Community College students did, in fact, carry firearms despite the school’s weasel-worded anti-weapons policies. But too few — and none of them in that classroom where the little creep chose his victims.


If there were no guns by Joe Huffman. Huffman doesn’t directly address the Oregon killings (though clearly his post was inspired by them).

He says, “Because of this change from a society of force to a society of reason one could, and should, go so far as to say the gun is civilization. Those who claim ‘civilized countries’ are disarmed have it exactly backward.”


Poll closing soon — results so far

This week’s poll will close shortly. Here are the results so far (click to embiggenate):

Screenshot from 2015-10-02 15:23:15

We’ve had 150 votes (usually with multiple votes per person). I’m not surprised that the largest number chose participating in online pro-gun discussions as one of their gun-rights activities. But in second place is hands-on firearm instruction. Kudos to you — especially those of you who regularly train shooters via Appleseed, hunter education classes, 4H, NRA-certified training, or any other regular means.

And hooray for the resisters of bad laws everywhere!


Eitam and Na’ama Henkin, HY”D


Just before 9:00 p.m. local (Israel) time Thursday, Rabbi Eitam and Rabbanit Na’ama Henkin, of Neria, Israel were slaughtered in their car, while driving their children between Elon Moreh and Itamar in the hills of the Shomron.   

It appears Rabbi Henkin was murdered in the initial burst of gunfire by terrorists from the nearby Arab village of Beit Furik.  He was found on the ground just outside the stopped car by rescue personnel.  His wife,  riddled with bullets, was in the passenger seat.  Both were were pronounced dead by medics who soon arrived on the scene. 


Their four children; a four-month-old baby, a four year old, a seven-year-old, and a nine-year-old were extracted from the car by rescue personnel and taken to nearby Itamar Junction with light (physical) injuries.

The Henkin’s taught at the Nishmat Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies for Women in Jerusalem, founded by Rabbanit Chana Henkin, who also serves as Dean of the school.  Rabbi Eitam Henkin also served as an officer in the Zahal commando unit, Sayaret Matkal.

Just the day before, “P.A. President” Abu Mazen, currently in the tenth year of his four-year term of office, had openly renounced (not that the Fakestinian Authority has ever abode by their terms) the 1994 Oslo Peace Accords.

Upon the news of these murders hitting the press, a  spokesman for Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah (HAMAS),  praised the murders, calling it “heroic” and describing it as “brave resistance.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his reaction to the news stated:

“…The killers knew that they were murdering a mother and father, the children were there. It has been proven again that the wild Palestinian incitement leads to acts of terrorism and murder such as we have seen this evening.”

Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi David Lau stated:

“Despite the (Sukkot) holiday and its joy, the entire nation is pained and cries at the murder of the parents who were sacrificed in kiddush Hashem (sanctification of G-d’s name) just because they were Jews,”

He called on the Nation to say Tehillim (Psalms) and learn Torah and Talmud in the merit of the deceased.  Focusing then on the orphaned children he stated:

“The tender orphans are the children of the entire people of Israel; we will strengthen them, we will embrace the family and despite the great sadness and the awful pain we will continue to pray and believe that the Guardian of Israel will guard the remnant of Israel, and we will soon merit the redemption of the people of Israel.”

Eitam and Na’ama Henkin…  May your blood be avenged!

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.

XSLT Plugin by Leo Jiang