No Snowflake In An Avalanche-A Book Review

By: Ronald Thomas West

This book is a damning indictment of the cowardice of men in leadership, a testament to the courage and sacrifice of those they presume to lead. For anyone who’d thought a nascent and growing extreme fundamentalism in the USA merely a threat, this book should make them think again and should rightfully frighten and galvanize to action anyone concerned a cult within our military can both: break the mentality of, and train a young officer for future assignment to launch nuclear weapons.

 

Where to begin? I could write essays on multiple subjects of peril this book has only scratched the surface of, yet that scratch bleeds profusely throughout its pages. It may seem odd to some that, for me, the most striking and empathetic passages of the book is a wife and mother with Multiple Sclerosis surrendering her dream of a life as uncomplicated as possible, as a matter of principle, giving up her pursuit of happiness and the American Dream to take on the malignant social cancer infesting and infecting what must ultimately be what our nation is judged by in the eyes of today’s world; The perception of American empire, the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

As I write, I know empathy, suffering Neuro-Behcets Syndrome, a mimic Multiple Sclerosis. My own desire has been many years wishing only to live out those years I have left in peace, but no, a narcissism of arrogance circumstantially known as fundamentalist Christian dominionism has dictated my duties according to conscience as well. Yes’m, I understand and know empathy in our common alliance against evil.

The human dimension is profound, the humiliation, the grief, the sacrifice and the fighting back against stacked odds at every turn for those ethical civilian and military warriors detailed in this book.

Where to begin? Striking is the thought, here is the true story’s protagonist with impeccable conservative credentials, Michael L. ‘Mikey’ Weinstein, breaking down every stereotype and smashing every barrier in a focused, concerted effort which, if successful, and there is no guarantee of success, should win the admiration of dyed in the wool liberals, feminists particularly, and people of every sane persuasion. Mikey has marched a long march to arrive on the cusp of achieving immortality in history. I am moved by his story and, by my own independent research, towards expending precious drops of my own small reservoir of life force to help Mikey achieve his goals.

This is no small achievement in its own right that a man, Mikey Weinstein, would have come so far in his personal evolution as to overcome his history of working to keep Iran-Contra from spilling into the open under Reagan, to win my avowed admiration. But here again is a striking moment, it was my own experiences as a soldier had turned me against wars altogether, no different to Howard Zinn. Mikey fits the same mold, only we each have our separate timelines to fated evolution and goals.

Mikey’s goal is quite straight forward. To take the American military, the most lethal military in the world by far, out of the hands of and keep it out of the hands of, what can only be accurately described as Madmen. Any such endeavor is highly worthy of my liberal support.

Where to begin? Critically important, the book makes a case for young American service women and men dying in vain on account of the narcissism, and nothing more, of those General Officers and politicians trusted with our soldiers care at the highest levels of these United States of America’s institutions, whether at the level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or sitting in either house of Congress.

This last will be the focus of my essay; I will leave the several other critically important subjects to the insights of other reviewers. I cannot speak to nukes as an expert, there are better qualified to speak to contemporary military/civilian life, but one thing I had dusted off and polished these past several years were my intelligence analysis skills. Here follows my analysis, in lockstep with the books conclusions, insofar as how deeply penetrated and compromised our military’s highest offices and ranking officer corps have become by dominionism and will yet cost us dearly in American lives and blood.

In my day, our Special Operations Forces had not yet become pervasively criminalized. We saw ourselves more along the lines of an elite Peace Corps working the most hazardous territories of a Cold War world. Critical to our mission was pacification of populace in the areas we worked, and pacification is and was a straightforward word. We worked to bring peace to neighborhoods in conflicts. John Wayne stereotype aside, the military aspects were honest endeavor to provide self-defense training to remote villages with an objective the populace could not be easily exploited by irregular militia, but that was never going to be accomplished in any case, except that we understood and respected and even integrated to the local customs and culture. That we had elite and lethal training was primarily survival oriented, yes there were the occasional ‘special operation’ to perhaps decapitate the leadership of a particular guerrilla group or undertake sabotage behind enemy lines in the course of our work, examples given, but this was the exception, not the rule. Primarily our superior skills were required to operate small teams in areas where we might meet with considerably stronger numerical force. The highly honed and elite skills of the 1960s and 1970s Green Berets teams were more often than not, more than equal to any larger irregular force. If vastly out numbered, we knew how to inflict savage and costly casualties on our pursuers in the course of evasion. In our pacification work, Action Anthropology was the norm of the day. We integrated to our human and social environment. We were armed educators, medical providers and social workers. We were not primarily meant to be offensive; to the contrary, restraint was a big piece of our discipline and training. Cowboy mentalities were not tolerated.

It is quite clear things have changed away from this focus, dramatically, for the military applications of special operations forces, in the approximately four decades since Vietnam.

In the span of a few hours or so in Iraq, one Special Forces team leader, inflamed by watching the ‘Passion of the Christ’, instigated an incident that effectively made a war zone of an entire neighborhood and radicalized several hundred, perhaps several thousand Muslims. This commissioned officer had used a bullhorn to have “Jesus kill Mohammed” blared into a Muslim neighborhood, and when the perfectly predictable reaction was everyone with a gun in that area of the city showing up to shoot at this moron, a weapon that could blow through the front and back wall of a house was turned on the neighborhood homes by the Special Forces team.

Many of those consequently radicalized Iraqis no doubt turned to local militia and offered their services to train to kill our regular American soldiers over this one of many [unpunished] incidents of Christian extremism provided elite training. Our ‘elite’ forces had just accomplished the absolutely criminal act of getting more Americans killed in future battles. This is the criminalization of our special operations forces by extremist Christian fundamentalist commanders. Who are those commanders? I will name two.

General William G. Boykin. A rabid fundamentalist Christian, his career in special operations is littered with tactical disasters. It would seem his only qualifications to have advanced throughout his career are his ‘belief in God.’ That and his belief in his special operations crusaders. With these mentalities at the top of command, what is promoted under you will be a solid corps of those with shared bigoted beliefs. General Boykin, since his retirement in 2007, had to be ‘dis-invited’ from speaking at West Point Academy on account of his virulent hatred of all things and people that are ‘not Christian or not Christian enough.’ Consider it is today’s special operations trained veterans who move into SWAT jobs in your local and state police force, are hired by Blackwater [then Xe Corp, now Academi, a lot of changed identities over a string of fundamentalism motivated crimes] and other de facto corporate militia, join the CIA and FBI or simply become mercenaries. These people with elite training and extreme belief will be getting many more Americans killed over a long haul ahead of us and not only in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Their numbers are only growing, thanks in large part to:

General Patraeus. It is common political knowledge in Washington DC that President Obama had appointed General Patraeus to head the CIA as a means of sidelining the General’s political ambitions over serious concerns Patraeus would hook up with the likes of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman in a run against Obama for the presidency in 2012. Either way you have it, a commander-in-chief, whether a military veteran or not, is a sword that can cut two ways. Obama’s naiveté in military affairs, having never served, is the 2nd worst possible circumstance in an America where naked fundamentalist ambition has overtaken the leadership of American military command structures, outside an out and out fundamentalist president. That Obama would, as a matter of political expediency, appoint Patraeus to head up the CIA with its out of control Operational Division working in close concert with the radicalized and criminalized Christian extremist special operations forces of today’s American military, is simply asking for disaster. General Patraeus was key [together with Robert Gates] in convincing Obama to radically beef up the USA’s special operations forces, at a time it was already decided the overall troop numbers would have to be reduced.

General Patraeus has had a close association with special operations forces throughout his career. Since Patraeus appointment to DCI [Director of Central Intelligence or CIA] Admiral William H McRaven, now overall boss of the special operations forces which these days are routinely assigned to CIA operational missions, has requested his forces be allowed to operate outside the traditional Department of Defense channels. This is, no doubt, a sleight-of-hand grab for these elite forces away from normal supervision via established Department of Defense structures, and away from oversight by Admiral McRaven’s professional associate CIA Director Patraeus. This cannot be a good thing.

The myth of General Patraeus in the public purview is a demonstrable tactical lie. In fact the ‘surge that turned around the war in Iraq’ for which he became famous was at best a deceit along the lines of a shell game or bait and switch. General Patraeus beefed up the American force, momentarily disrupted the insurgency with an all out push that could not be sustained in any case, and then pulled the bulk of the American forces back to their bases and took the Americans, for the first time, largely out of public circulation before the insurgents could regroup. It is this removing the American soldiers from the everyday Iraqi life which had dramatically dropped the violence in Iraq, nothing more. The same could have been accomplished in 2004, and honestly at that, were it not for literally crusading extremist neo-con commanders and secular officers afraid to speak out and challenge the status quo at the CIA and Pentagon, to call a spade a spade, a career ending move. It is truly Faustian, if you speak out your career is over and you have been weeded from the ranks which only become more Christian extremist with the favored or ‘blessed’ replacements, if you keep your mouth shut, it all evolves towards fascism regardless.

Moving over to Afghanistan, notoriously there have been many special operations forces crimes, inclusive of attacking a wedding where fleeing women and kids had been shot in their backs, cold blooded murders. We pay the Afghans compensation but the root problem of anti-Islam fundamentalism is never effectively addressed and the hate for the Americans only spreads. General Patraeus has had a large hand in keeping these American special operations independent of NATO, effectively exercising impunity and generating a strengthened Taliban when the Americans are seen as a worse curse.

Now, we are seeing the full fruition of the crusading mentality and criminal anti-social behaviors with the ‘burning of the Koran’ riots in Kabul triggering a long pent up but growing frustration of the Afghan people as a whole. No Snowflake in an Avalanche points towards the inevitable conclusion: Our fundamentalist neo-con Generals, in the guise of patriotism, have handed an untrained Obama a perfect storm. This is no accident.

The book’s holdings are consistent with the preceding scenario I have drawn for the reader from my knowledge of social psychology, special operations intelligence and tactics. The book meticulously documents the facts of the extremism in our military leadership; it is a well written book, concise and cohesive to the points of sedition and treason at the highest levels of the United States Armed Forces and matches my independent assessment of these past several years, summarized in the preceding.

**

No Snowflake in an Avalanche by Michael L. ‘Mikey’ Weinstein and David Seay, review by Ronald Thomas West, a Vietnam Veteran, recipient of the United States Army Commendation Medal (individual citation) & the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (Brigade Aviation, 199th Light Infantry Brigade, unit citation.) Subsequent to an extended tour of Vietnam, Ronald served as operations & intelligence sergeant for a Special Forces detachment [19th Special Forces Group] and was Distinguished Graduate of the Hawk Improved Missile program at the U.S. Army Missile School, Ft Bliss, Texas.

Ronald’s family tree has soldiers serving in nearly every period of American conflict including the Civil and American Revolutionary Wars. Immediate family members who have served in the military include both grandfathers, his father, uncle, brother, nephew and two of his three sons.

Ronald is co-author [together with Dr Mark D Cole] of the Mueller-Wilson report [International Law/Human Rights.] Today he is a medically retired investigator, author and part time investigative reporter for the online magazine subversify.com

You may purchase  ‘No Snowflake in an Avalanche’ at Amazon

19 Comments on “No Snowflake In An Avalanche-A Book Review”

  1. Ronald – I interviewed Mikey for the short-lived Subversify Radio a couple of years ago – there’s an article from the interview here in the archives.

    Mikey is a national treasure; one of those people who say, “I’m fighting injustice; no matter what.” He’s had death-threats and threats against his home. (He describes what he does as ‘blood sport’).

    If not for people like him, the military would probably be raising a Christian flag of some sorts over America.

  2. I couls not agree more with you W.D., there is no question Mikey Weinstein is a national treasure, the only question I would pose is, ‘did he come along too late’ ? He certainly is that rare person who tells it like it is, and for the longest time has seemed a voice in the wilderness. The Pentagon may be raising that Christian flag yet, if more people with substance and means don’t get off their butts sooner rather than later and pitch in to help in Mikey’s cause-

    Here is Mikey’s [today, 2 March] latest at ‘truthout’

    http://www.truth-out.org/burning-korans-afghanistan/1330711430

    ..

  3. This is perrhaps the most powerful argument that can possibly be made against state-run military forces – it’s far too easy for a small number of interests to control a ridiculous amount of firepower when the command structure is centralized (a problem that does not exist for locally-operated militias).

  4. Recalling:

    “Patraeus appointment to DCI [Director of Central Intelligence or CIA] Admiral William H McRaven, now overall boss of the special operations forces which these days are routinely assigned to CIA operational missions, has requested his forces be allowed to operate outside the traditional Department of Defense channels. This is, no doubt, a sleight-of-hand grab for these elite forces away from normal supervision via established Department of Defense structures, and away from oversight by Admiral McRaven’s professional associate CIA Director Patraeus”

    This next has come out since

    http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/03/pentagon-may-put-jsoc-under-secretive-cia-control-in-2014/

    “If the plan were adopted, the U.S. government would be able to officially say that there are no more troops in Afghanistan, because once the special operations teams are assigned to CIA control they become spies. This would obviously hinder any potential for accountability and transparency, since activities and funding would become classified and journalists or other forms of oversight would not be welcomed”

  5. @ Azazel: I would expect ‘local militia’ can come with its own set of problems, depending on circumstance. If you consider the aftermath of Libya, it’s not a pretty picture with competing militia looking to carve up the country into fiefs and control the ‘spoils’ or wealth of the nation. The so called ‘militia’ such as the extra-legal right-wing ‘Militia of Montana’ are not necessarily a good idea, only looking out for a self-interest that is tied to radical ideology and certainly does not represent the interests of citizens only wishing to get on with a peaceful life. Were there to be any ‘counter-militia’ organized, then you have the recipe inter-communal conflict, indeed, in a macro sense, civil war.

    The American tradition of citizen militia has been more often than not, an informal armed citizenry with Veteran leadership and little to no structured organization other than knowing who responsible people are in the community. It is a spontaneous constitutional militia of last resort that is embedded in the American psyche since the French and Indian wars.

    On the other hand, there were other historical model in the USA experience, such as the armory in the City of Philadelphia which kept a supply of muskets for citizen volunteers and as such, theoretically kept the power of armed force in the hands of responsible citizens. Of course we saw something similar to that model go awry a mere 50 or so years later at Harper’s Ferry with John Brown commandeering the armory there (Robert E Lee commanded the Federal troops who retook the armory from Browns men, history trivia)

    And now we see in the human experience, what the weapon is, can be besides the point when it comes to a polarized society and a desire to kill fanned by fear resulting from propaganda and hate speech, such as the multiple massacres by machete in Rwanda.

    Is it a good idea to be prepared? Probably. Will organized local militia serve a common good? That is a very open to debate question in today’s world and polarized politic, necessarily so because there is no way to predict outcomes except you can bet organizing independent militia will draw attention to that militia as a target and propagate polarization at the expense of dialogue. But then, insofar as dialogue goes, some people cannot be reasoned with and that goes to groups, not only individuals.

    No easy answers here .. but tried to give a reasonable reply to a somewhat cryptic declaration .. certainly I agree the centralized armed force has long past gone into runaway mode and endangers our very existence and certainly any entity that endangers our very existence should be questioned, even challenged as to its legitimacy. How one goes about that challenge is again a very good question. Speaking for myself, having first hand seen the havoc war wreaks on community and humanity, I always recall, as a matter of principle, the axiom ‘force escalates violence’ when approaching these matters in my thinking.

    Of course when dealing with people who believe reason and intelligence are ‘deviant’ qualities and are determined to do in reasonable and intelligent people just as soon as they think they can get away with it, well, I do expect reasonable and intelligent people would be prepared to deal with that, and by force if necessary

  6. @ Ronald Thomas West,

    I don’t deny that localized militias have the potential for drawbacks and that certain militias can take the offensive against regular people (but then again, if people were naturally peaceful there would be no need for an armed defense force in the first place) – however, the level of damage that a rogue militia force can inflict is significantly less than what a standing army can bring to bear against the common man (one can be effectively repelled without a prolonged campaign by another defending militia force, a standing army forces a defending militia to wage a protracted guerrilla over the course of years [if not decades] to force out).

    Also, I realize that forming militias in a modern world (one filled with “civilized” people that are unaccustomed to wiping their own asses – let alone defending their own interests from hostile forces…) would be a cause for some alarm and that could potentially lead to conflict – but considering that the alternative is to simply let the state keep its monopoly on force unchallenged, that’s a risk certainly worth taking: especially when one considers the impact of Pek Oil (which is just over the horizon – and it’s accompanied by civil unrest due to food and fuel shortages…) and the ever-growing powers of the police state (which is not seriously opposed outside a few local areas whos inhabitants have rejected this rotten society), the need for some common defense against the society that claims to “protect” (read: dominate) regular people becomes readily apparent.

    I forget who originally said it, but this quote is quite apt – “only the dead have seen the end of war.” The question isn’t whether or not there will be fighting, but *who* will do the fighting? Given a choice between a centralized military force (which answers to some incorporeal entity run by corrupt politicians and lobbyists) and a locally operated militia force (which answers directly to those people who constitute it) I’m picking the second option…

  7. “however, the level of damage that a rogue militia force can inflict is significantly less than what a standing army can bring to bear against the common man (one can be effectively repelled without a prolonged campaign by another defending militia force, a standing army forces a defending militia to wage a protracted guerrilla over the course of years [if not decades] to force out)”

    Militia are embedded in community and militia on militia violence can be among the most destructive events community can experience in any course of war, going so far as to ethnic cleansing. We’re shifted away from the focus of the article quite a ways into speculation and tangent but I wish to correct this tactical error-

  8. As I said Ron, I don’t deny the possibility of destruction from a rogue militia and I recognize that a militia conflict can cause significant destruction within a community – but a standing army can simply wipe said community out if it were so inclined (and in the case of a full-blown civil war, I have little trouble imagining U.S./NATO troops demolishing entire towns and cities to go after a few “terrorists” [as though they’re real…]).

  9. Az, there are three basic types prone to commit costly tactical/strategic blunders resulting from mistaken assessments 1) those who make rash decisions based on incomplete information and inadequate training, 2) Ideologues and 3) Cowards. You don’t strike me as a coward 😉

  10. Explain to me why FEMA has ordered over 140 million body bags and tell me that my assessment is mistaken Ron – no natural disaster shy of a meteor strike could produce said casualties, so the only other logical explination is that the state anticipates a war of mass depopulation within its own borders: considering which faction that wields the greater level of firepower is none other than the state itself and that it presently has a *huge* population surplus (which it needs to somehow put to work or expend – considering the sortage of jobs[which will only get worse at time goes by] th only option it has is liquidation), I think its pretty obvious which force tends to dole out the most death in such a conflict.

    You’re right about me being no coward, but don’t assume I’m some blathering ideologue or uninformed redneck yokel – states tend to deal with social unrest in very brutal manners and given present conditions I would not put mass extermination of entire populations beyond its consideration…

  11. 1) Infrastructure collapse triggered by any number of other possible events, including nuclear war (people don’t have the survival skills and circumstance of a century ago, the skills/abilities of the large rural populations have been lost)

    2) Contractors who are in the racket of making millions painting disaster scenarios on the pretext of fulfilling FEMA mission statement while milking their connections on the inside, not so different to the related security sector as stated by Thomas Drake of NSA “We’re talking lots of money. The revolving door is an understatement. The number of millionaires made at NSA, one of these open dark secrets, is phenomenal”

    3) We had an untracked meteor that could do the job come out of nowhere and pass between the Earth and Moon within the past year or two, major sustained multiple volcanic eruptions and associated crop failures with infrastructure breakdown could do it

    4) The REMOTE possibility of a fascist coup successfully turning all of the USA’s military might on Americans and pulling off the incredible feat killing ½ of an armed to the teeth population which also presumes most of the military would go along with pointless killing of nearly ½ the population

    5) Keep the likes of Alex Jones in business, where in fact much of the really good information is deliberately channeled in order to discredit it by association with lizard DNA and David Icke to feed Azazel’s and countless other beyond the horizon conspiracy freaks paranoid fantasies for propaganda purposes, which only serves to distract from the real issues and intelligent approach raising awareness and solving the problems we CAN do something about, like getting the word out we need to replace our current military leadership, bringing pressure to bear within existing structures 😉

  12. ^ Seriously Az, you need to broaden your horizons. One perfectly courageous means of accomplishing that is to learn to laugh at yourself when you’ve been busted as an ideologue with self-imposed limited insight. There is two kinds of intelligence available to you, one is your organic IQ which is irrelevant in the absence the other intelligence we can call common sense. Ideologues need not be “blathering” idiots, they simply can be people who are so fixated on a particular set of proposed ideas, they cannot see the forest for the trees. This is more often than not with persons such as yourself who’ve not risen above anger which colors perception and inhibits genuine or innate abilities.

    I write satire deliberately designed to get under narrow-minded peoples skin, sometimes custom tailored to individuals. That phenomena in my art tends to reflect whenever I encounter and engage personalities such as your own (noting it is in your power to change your personality and broaden your horizons.) Here is a collection for your (and the entire subversify world’s) perusal:

    http://www.scribd.com/collections/3058527/The-Satires?page=1

    I have a title for a possible new essay in the collection: ‘At The Online Magazine Azazelfy’

    My entertainment is sometimes reduced to engaging persons such as yourself merely because I have ample time to be bored and when I am bored I often deal with it writing satire and you might inspire that artistic phenomena in me sooner rather than later (wink, wink)

  13. 1. Nuclear war is suicide and anyone with half a brain knows this – ergo there’s no point in even trying to deal with the aftermath because the world will be reduced to a green-glowing graveyard. Furthermore, I strongly doubt that anyone has ever seriously considered launching the nukes since the early years of the Cold War! So I don’t take any measures the state preforms under a nuclear aftermath-type strategy seriously: I see such things as a cover for other agendas.

    2. I heard the story about the untracked meteor – and quite frankly, I don’t buy it: with all this surveilence tech that’s been put into space for “research” purposes (allegedly) I find it difficult to believe they would miss something that big. I find it more likely that this story was released for the purpose of justifying an increase in surveilence tech as well as “emergency authority” for the state on the ground below.

    3. I know you think this possibility is remote, but I see it as inevitable (the planet is overpopulated and the powers that be have only one tool at their disposal to deal with it…). Furthermore, the killing off of over 1/2 the population would not be pointless from the perspective of power – the simple truth here is that the planet is quickly being exhuasted of its resources and more people simply means more mouths to feed: a surplus population of 140 or more would pose a threat to the state’s power when its well-armed (hence all the arms control we’ve been seeing over the last couple decades under the guise of “fighting crime”) and willing to fight for their lives – the end result would be a civil war and those in the halls of power know this!

    As for the infrastructure collapsing – it’s been under-funded for years now (constituting about 3% of the federal budget) and is collapsing already: I think it’s being left to rot intentionally because it won’t be needed once the state get around to “cleansing” the population of dissent.

    Finally, I can (and do) laugh at myself – what I don’t laugh at is the concentration of power and its intentions: you may feel free to call me crazy but try to look beyond the propaganda that pours out of the mainstream press and ask yourself what the *real* intentions of power (the same powers that brought us such things as the MK Ultra program and the 9/11 attacks [I don’t buy the 19 hijacker story], BTW) might be – looking at it from a historical perspective (as this wouldn’t be the first time a civilization dispensed with its surplus population) the vision becomes rather frightening…

  14. Let’s try this again. I’d quoted you and replied but my comment did not want to post-

    You wrote

    “but try to look beyond the propaganda that pours out of the mainstream press”

    I replied

    http://subversify.com/2012/02/17/analyzing-fraud-in-democracy-movements-for-21712/

    What is I think pretty obvious is your focus on self and resultant projection, but anyhow, I appreciate the inspiration for a satire, I’m looking at working in Pavlov’s dog [woof!], Abraham Maslow and a whole host of personalities discussing paranoid narcissism online .. later dude ;)”

    **

    Now other than that, I’ll go on to say I’m not your wet nurse, so I fail to understand why you seem to require stepping into my space to validate your points of view or whatever the obsession is, but I’m certain I’ll find the satire an opportunity to enlighten. I can see you’re avoiding several points I’d made, as well your memory is faulty regarding my endeavors right here at subversify and in case where you had not done your homework amazingly you assign the Christian dominionist collective insanity the lucid quality of:

    “Nuclear war is suicide and anyone with half a brain knows this – ergo there’s no point in even trying to deal with the aftermath because the world will be reduced to a green-glowing graveyard. Furthermore, I strongly doubt that anyone has ever seriously considered launching the nukes since the early years of the Cold War! So I don’t take any measures the state preforms under a nuclear aftermath-type strategy seriously”

    Now, Az, I don’t doubt you have ‘half a brain’ but what you don’t seem to grasp is, the present freaks in charge at the Pentagon actually believe launching Armageddon will precipitate the return of Jesus and that points to considerably less than half a brain. So again you are assigning your reality to others and that is why you have only half a brain. You only see your half of things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.