Friday, March 4, 2016

Is Donald Trump a Psychopath?

KGB "Black Raven"
UPDATE: Donald Trump today (March 4) reversed his position on killing terrorists' families and torture, according news outlets, including  CNN. Trump had come under serious criticism after an answer he gave to a question at last night's debate premised on whether American military would follow illegal orders to shoot noncombatants. "They won't refuse me. They're not going to refuse me, believe me," he answered.

The Bear does not write on politics much, but when he does, he assumes readers have a basic familiarity with candidates' positions. It is simply beyond dispute that Trump has on more than one occasion, publicly advocated targeting terrorists' families for retaliatory killings. It is sheer drudgery to force the Bear's research staff of squirrels to tediously document candidates' most outrageous and well-known statements. If anyone is really curious, just Google "Trump killing terrorists' families."

QUICK TAKE. It is good that Trump can abandon stupid positions. Perhaps someone finally has him in hand and we may see him grow. On the other hand, the guy did maintain for some time the position that he would order terrorists' families killed because while terrorists' don't care about their own lives, they do care about their families' lives.

The Bear has a hard time working out how the points come out on the tough guy - evil - psychopath triad. Which doesn't mean he is vowing not to vote for him.


 In last night's debate, unless people are making up stuff (Bear didn't watch) Donald Trump once again said he would order retaliatory killings of terrorists' families. That presumably means men, women and children. The Bear credits it because he did watch a previous debate in which Trump said the same thing. As the Bear recalls, he was challenged on it by another candidate. The Bear thought, "That's crazy. Trump is going to make this guy look like an idiot."

Unfortunately, given the opportunity to deny or clarify, he confirmed it then with the certainty that accompanies his every pronouncement.

First of all, how does he imagine he is going to have the power to do this? Executive order? There are constitutional protections that run in this country that protect residents from murder by federal authorities. You see, in the Bear's America, all lives matter.

Second of all, is that really Trump's understanding of America? A police state like the Soviet Union where innocent people are taken away at night by the feared KGB "Black Ravens" and never seen again?

Even if the rule is confined to overseas combat zones, it would be counterproductive and morale corroding, not to mention monstrous, to order American soldiers to conduct retaliatory murder. The Bear's son was a kid in Afghanistan. How do you process an order like that after you've watched your buddies killed by treachery? The Bear is certain his son would never carry out such an order, but how could it ever be given in the first place? The old cliche that "the terrorists would have already won," has a real sting to it with Trump's policy.

But there is something even more disturbing, if possible.

Dr. Robert Hare is the godfather of the study of psychopaths. In Without Conscience, the Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, he says, "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate and plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and feeling for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please."

Hare co-authored with Dr. Robert Babiak the later Snakes in Suits, When Psychopaths Go to Work, which documents the ease with which psychopaths can fool employers, and even rise to success. Not being hampered by empathy or conscience may be highly adaptive.

The simplest definition of a psychopath is "an intraspecies predator." They can be charming, are manipulative, and utterly persuasive. They are commonly described as "glib." In other words, they lie convincingly and without effort. A common way of describing psychopathy is "they know the words, but they don't know the music." They are literally incapable of feeling empathy. They know good from evil, but just don't -- some would argue can't -- care.

"Psychopath" and "sociopath" are essentially synonyms. They are not insane, in a legal sense, and there remains controversy whether they are covered by the diagnosis "Antisocial Personality Disorder," or, indeed, any mental illness. As mentioned, they can be quite successful, although usually their lack of long-term planning is a hindrance.

Some researchers, such as Dr. Kent Kiehl (with whom the Bear has collaborated professionally) use advanced equipment that, in simplified terms, allows them to see which areas in a subject's brain "light up" in response to various visual stimuli. Kiehl claims that psychopaths' brains are "wired wrong." This supposedly accounts for their lack of empathy and conscience, and, in some cases, their danger. The Bear does not buy it at this stage of research, and it has proven a disaster in the few trials in which it has been used. It seems sentencing juries are not moved to spare remorseless, conscienceless, utterly self-centered, and dangerous murderers who can never be cured. Go figure.

Is Donald Trump a psychopath? Is he successful despite his psychopathy, or, perhaps, because of his psychopathy? Who knows? The Bear has the wrong graduate degree for such answers, but must ask the question.

The Bear finds something strange and disquieting about this idea that the President of the United States can order out the Black Ravens at night to sweep up innocent people who will never be seen again, or command American soldiers to execute noncombatants. These are not the positions of a man who doesn't get something; these are the positions of a man who doesn't get anything.


  1. It's unbelievable to me how things are playing out. Who is more odius, Trump or Clinton? Looks like I'll be voting third party.

  2. Make that "who is more odious"?

    I do believe both Trump and Clinton are diabolical narcissists. Could we be ushering in the Age of the Anti-Christ?

    1. I totally agree with you that they both have narcissist personality disorder. My husband and I are both voting third party. Note: I work with social workers. One of my coworkers has a degree in Social Work Criminology and watches the Republican debates just to laugh at Trump. How sad.

    2. I read an article that Trump may actually be a charismatic Psychopath. Working in a disability / mental health office it's just so obvious to me. It's just so shocking to me that the general public is unaware of cluster B personality disorders. These are dangerous people to have in power positions.

    3. I think people do not believe one can be successful, and suffer a mental illness. Psychopaths are rare, so chances are Trump is not one. I thought it was an interesting hook to discuss his policies (which he has since reversed).

      Presidential candidates, like trial lawyers, benefit from being both bigger than life and smaller than most humans.

      It is too early to get very worked up, in my opinion. My impressing that Trump will play to the crowd until he gets caught out on something has been reinforced, however. I think we will be buying a pig in a poke if we elect Trump, because who knows what the man's true convictions are?

  3. My oldest son will be voting in a national election for the first time. He is a big fan of Trump. He was outraged by the attacks on him by the other repubs and the media. My son is a History major. He's also pretty smart on most things but his choices for his first pres election are pretty poor. He knows that Dad's first election choice was Reagan or Carter. It seemed very clear to me as a 20 YO back then.

    I sorta am leaning toward Cruz. But, I may sit this one out.

    1. Still early. I am not a Trump hater. I think his instincts are often sound, but then how can you say that when he imagines this could ever be policy? FWIW, out of three males in my household all are vets, two disabled, one with a CIB. Service is a family tradition. Only my oldest did not. My father (and mother) in WWII, grandfather in WWI. None of them would carry out such an order, I am sure.

    2. Not to pick on 20-somethings, but I find they have a whole different culture that I just don't get. And I'm talking Army vets. They tell me that with internet, most soldiers believe the craziest conspiracy theories. My guys follow gay conservative Catholic Milo Yiannapoulos, who seems to be playing it for shock value and hits. I try to tell them we've been through this before with Andrew Sullivan, but whatever.

    3. Trump is a marketer, a wannabe PT Barnum and an overgrown Tom Cruise from Risky Business. He's built a few buildings, but he really deals in human vice--Casinos, beauty pageants, reality shows, egos. He claims to have created jobs, but his businesses extract wealth, they don't build wealth (for the nation).

      He was shrewd enough to see a lot of angry voters and no formidable GOP candidate. He knows how to play on emotions and carnal desire. Trump "University" played on the aspect of greed to "get rich quick".

      I've been extremely disappointed the GOP candidates didn't knee-cap him early on his facade. They just didn't know how to deal with someone like him and let him intimidate them with insults and interruptions. He's a wizard of oz--all smoke and sound until Toto pulls back the curtain.

      It's just a question of whether there's time for that to happen before he garners too many delegates.

    4. You cannot seem to express yourself without being hostile. That is so sad. Your analysis of Trump is crude, shallow, and lacks in comprehension of motives beyond
      greed. It says much about you.

    5. Barbara! Why thank you! I take that as high praise from a truther.

      I pointed out that he is a wizard of oz—all smoke and sound. Let’s take a look at your sophisticated analysis below in *defense* of Trump and see if there is any difference in our analysis.

      You defended him with the following statements:
      “The point of his big talk”
      “I do not think that what Donald Trump said he would do is what he actually would do.”
      “He talks big for effect.”
      “regardless of his bluff and bluster.”
      “I think it is the bluffing of a businessman to convey a position of power.”

      “Trump followed his big remarks with a retraction the next day because he had new information regarding law.”
      [I disagree. I don’t think Trump was stupid enough to believe he could do that. What he realized is that one of his emotional playing cards wouldn’t work any more, so he discarded it.]

      You conclude with:
      “Ironically, what has attracted so many to Trump is his honesty.”
      Since when is bluff and saying you'd do things that you won't ever been regarded as honesty?

      “I do not see in Donald Trump a pattern of lying or a grinning façade of empty promises so apparent in so many other politicians.”
      Actually you *do* see the same pattern! Explain the difference between a candidate that “talks big” with “bluff and bluster” to “convey a position of power” and convince people to vote for him, versus a “typical” politician making “empty promises” to get elected.

      Put on your tinfoil thinking hat, tune in to Trump’s secret broadcasts, and explain the difference.
      Then explain how your analysis of his talk differs substantially from mine, other than you brush it off as “honesty” whereas I see it as manipulation of a voting audience.

  4. If Trump is a psychopath for acknowledging that ISIS cannot be reasoned with and will not stop the beheading, so is Harry Truman for dropping the atomic bomb twice in Japan. War is ugly, ugly, ugly.

    1. I believe you have changed the premise. Retaliatory murder against specific men, women and children abroad, and for all I know, at home. Ordering American sons to put innocent men, women and children against the wall and shooting them. I seriously doubt you endorse this.

    2. Is this what Trump said he would do? I heard him say that he would go after the oil fields in ISIS possession. It was inferred that women and children would be harmed in this endeavor and he responded that we needed 'to hit (ISIS) where it hurts.' I did not hear him claim that he would line women and children up and shoot them. Killing people in war is killing people. I have not 'changed the premise' at all.

    3. My understanding remains the same. Accepting collateral damage would hardly be newsworthy. In the debate I heard he said he would kill the families of terrorists. When challenged, he said, "What, they can kill us and we can't kill them?" Perhaps you have been misinformed.

    4. Donald Trump did not say that he would 'line up women and children against a wall and shoot them.' If you think he said that find out where and let me know. It was not said in the debate on 3-3-16. Killing families of terrorists in an attempt to hit oil fields is not targeting specific women and children any more than bombing Japan twice and killing women and children is targeting specific women and children. Perhaps in taking meaning out of context you have misinterpreted.

    5. At it again, Barbara?

      Trump didn't say the families would be killed by collateral damage. He was talking about going after families directly. He didn't deny it when he said the military would obey his unlawful orders. Now he's realized he was getting pummeled by military/intelligence officials and backtracked.

      >>"any more than bombing Japan twice and killing women and children is targeting specific women and children."
      Really? Perhaps I should point out that slamming an airliner into a skyscraper isn't targeting *specific* men, women, and children. Just the ones that happen to be there.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Google is useful on this issue. On Fox, his explicit rationale was to go after terrorists' families because terrorists don't care for their own lives. One example of several at different times and places. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your facts. So the question remains. Do you endorse the policy or not? I do not believe you do. I think better of you.

    1. You are also entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled your version of facts any more than I am entitled to my version of facts. What exactly did Donald Trump say that informs your judgment of accusation? A vague reference to google and Fox does not help. My sense is that you have misinterpreted his statements and taken them out of the context in which they were spoken. I would need to know what his words were and the context of the conversation within which his words were spoken before I can tell you whether or not I agree or disagree with his 'policy'. Those would be the facts. I watched the whole debate on 3-3-16 and did not hear Donald Trump say or imply what you are saying he said and and implied. Trump was speaking of bombing oil fields. An interaction occurred which has been interpreted by you in a certain way, a way very different from what I understood him to mean. I cannot give you my judgment on Trump's policy until I understand what exactly what was said that indicates to you he intended to lineup women and children and shoot them. Specifics, please.

    2. So, instead of taking five minutes to Google something that everyone knows, that Trump has publicly maintained a policy of killing terrorists' families and vowed to order American troops to violate the law of war, you are essentially asking me to write a special news report to satisfy you, because you don't like my opinion piece. Well, old news is a low priority at SCB. And if you don't know the truth about what your candidate said, and what he unsaid just today about not forcing U.S. troops to commit war crimes, then there is nothing this Bear can report that will satisfy you. I find it astonishing that this is news to any half-way informed U.S. citizen. Once again, Google is your friend. What are you afraid of?

    3. You are the one musing over whether or not Donald Trump is a psychopath. You should provide your facts. Yes, he did say that he would take out the families of ISIS because he said, 'believe it or not, they do care about their families.' Donald Trump reversed his position today because he realizes now that he must work within the framework of international law to which the U.S. is committed. You show your fuzzy thinking in discriminating between Trump's solution to the beheaders of many and Harry Truman ordering what he did at the end of WW11. As someone pointed out to you, armchair psychologizing is very easy.

    4. Ergo, you now acknowledge that Donald Trump advocated a policy for the United States of America to conduct reprisal killings against terrorists's families, that you were somehow previously uninformed on. Since you do not comment on it, I assume you approve. You are free, of course, to correct me. However, I expect you to say it doesn't matter because he's now going to abide by international law. (Because someone collared him and told him he sounded like an ignorant barking lunatic, but that is just speculation).

      I also assume you did not catch the part in last night's debate where Trump insisted U.S. soldiers would obey his orders even in violation of international law (not to mention moral law). Now that you know that, too, I wonder what you make of it? And if not murdering civilians, just what unlawful orders do you imagine the questioner and Trump had in mind? Mishandling a Quran? Why do you think he hastened to correct course the very day after making a fool out of himself in the debate?

      Did he specifically say he would line up men, women and children, and personally give the order to 11 Bravos to gun them down. No. Was his position clear? Yes. He meant deliberately killing innocent family members at least overseas. He also spoke somewhat unclearly on another occasion about the family members in the San Bernardino attack "knowing what was going on." He did mention anything about having them investigated and federally charged on anything, so we're left to guess exactly what he was talking about, but it is clear that he has to rationales: reprisal killings because terrorists don't care about themselves, and actual guilt of some sort due to knowledge of family members about attacks.

      These are facts, generally, but accurately cited as the premise of an opinion piece on the kind of person that would come up with such policies. I felt they were well enough known not to waste space proving them up. There is a comment box, after all, to keep me honest.

      You have easily waltzed away from the merits of the positions held by Trump as late as yesterday, now that you acknowledge them, and, of course, that is an abyss you can't afford to look into.

      WWII is only generally related to this discussion, unless you believe, with Trump our boys will be good soldiers and obey any order he gives them, even if it is cold-blooded murder and turns them into war criminals.

      This is not WWII. It is not a question of what we can do. We can do pretty much any damn thing we want. The trick is to identify the real threat, set objectives, and neutralize them within the bounds of the law. Our leadership has never been willing to do that post-WWII. Trump may very well be the man to do so. But he is completely ignorant of military matters. The man might be able to play Monopoly, but he sure couldn't win at Risk. For example, he did not know what the "nuclear triad" was in one debate. Well, it's only the most important concept for making sure we don't get nuked. He clearly found it fun to shoot off his mouth about killing various people before he had bothered to grasp the basics of the law of war, or even morality, which prompted my original question.

      I never diagnosed Trump. I specifically disclaimed the expertise. But I do know something about psychopathy due to my profession, and when someone boasts of deliberately murdering innocent people and insists that our soldiers would do it just because he said, you bet. I wonder if this is not a man who operates with a dangerous lack of moral judgment. And, by the way, IF Trump WERE TO BE a psychopath, I suspect we will see a pattern of lying, using people and dishonesty. I just hope we see it before he wins the primary and the Democrats cream him with it.

    5. First of all, Trump does a lot of talking, but shows himself to be very open to advice from others more knowledgeable than himself, as in this case, and in many other instances too. The point of his big talk regarding ISIS was that ISIS is composed of characters with whom you cannot reason or negotiate. You are dealing with mad men. You have to deal with them from a show of force. it is the only language they understand. I do agree with that. Frankly, I do not think that what Donald Trump said he would do is what he actually would do. He talks big for effect. Trump has too much savvy to follow such a a path, and in my assessment of him, too much humanity to follow such a course. This is my take on him, regardless of his bluff and bluster. Also, as I said, he shows himself able to listen to the advice of others. If this were not so, he would not have been so successful in his businesses, because in business it is not all show of force but rather an ability to compromise and to be flexible, and to listen to the needs of others, but all within a negotiating presence of power. This is what he was trying to convey regarding soldiers obeying him no matter what. I think it is the bluffing of a businessman to convey a position of power.
      According to your combox not everyone agrees with your dismissal of Harry Truman's actions in Japan. Donald Trump is talking big. Harry Truman actually dropped two atomic bombs in Japan, killing thousands and thousands of people and severely wounding many more. He did not do it in a moment of bluffing bluster either, but rather after careful thought. Trump followed his big remarks with a retraction the next day because he had new information regarding law. He is no more a psychopath than Harry Truman and you are not in a position to say otherwise.
      Ironically, what has attracted so many to Trump is his honesty. We don't see it much in 'the establishment' which you seem to trust so much, as in the case of Scalia's puzzling death circumstances. Skip the lecture on how all is fine on that front. It loses its power to convince when you refer to the JFK murderer as a lone gunman. I do not see in Donald Trump a pattern of lying or a grinning façade of empty promises so apparent in so many other politicians. I appreciate that he assesses the sickness in this country so aptly and wants to use his gifts to help our present situation to improve.

    6. We're back to Scalia Truthers now?

      It may surprise you to know that I have not written Trump off, now that he has reversed his Führerprinzip approach to the military. It is too early for me to decide who to vote for. A lot will depend on who Trump can get for his VP, if I see some growth in maturity (he really needs to stop mugging for the cameras during debates, if he can), and if he puts together good position papers on just how he's going to accomplish what needs to be done.

  6. Go to Mahounds Paradise for an understanding of why the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were immoral. I could never accept the reason given for why it was carried out. We may never choose evil in hopes that good will come of it. I shudder to think of the Midwestern haberdasher on Judgement Day. I think a Catholic president with a rightly formed conscience would never have ordered something so monstrous.

    The epicentre of Catholicism in Japan was nuked and that is no small thing.

    1. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not happen in a vacuum. Japan was defended by a fanatical religious cult. (Sound familiar?) Projected casualties were high.

      City-busting was not unprecedented. The Germans bombed Coventry, and London, of course, to less dramatic effect. The Allies firebombed Dresden.

      We could have destroyed Japan's fleet (mostly accomplished) and quarantined them. I dunno. Glad I didn't have to make the decision. Glad I don't have to take a position on it right now.

    2. Jesus will sort it out. But we must acknowledge evil in our time. Coventry, Dresden were brazenly immoral.

    3. To me this is a sad and pointless discussion.
      Who is to say (you?) what is immoral. I consider myself fairly well versed on the end of WW2. What is worse? The killed and maimed in the nuclear bombings or the 1+million Allied casualties form a full invasion? Or, the almost certainty of a reprise of mass civilian casualties from suicides? Consider the mass deaths on Okinawa multiplied.

      It is so much easier to be an arm chair general and saint, isn't it? You might want to consider that plank in your own eye.

    4. I agree. Who invented "total warfare" where civilians were targeted? They sure suffered during the 30 years war in the wake of the Reformation. But General Sherman destroyed everything in sight during his march to the sea, in order to punish, devastate and demoralize southern civilians to the greatest extent possible. So ol' Honest Abe is not one of the Bear's fondest memories.

    5. Maybe it takes a man to bomb a Cathedral just because. A woman, not so much, methinks. So me pointing out Hitler's evil in bombing Coventry is not minding the plank in my own eye? Sheesh.

    6. WWII is pretty much a rabbit hole as far as this issue goes.


    Ad infinitum...

    The destruction of the Amalekites and Canaanites. Sodom and Gomorra. The Great Flood. The Passover.

    Entire families, clans, villages, cities and nations are supporting the wholesale slaughter of Christians and Jews around the globe today just as they have done throughout history.

    Just as Moses, Joshua and Saul had to act against evil, so too must our current and future leaders act. Doing so does not make them psychopaths.

    1. When God gives the order to cleanse the lands of our enemies to the last man, woman and child, nor forgetting the smallest puppy, if they had puppies, Bear will be the first in line.

      And unfair to include acts of God. God can do whatever he wants. We have moral rules we must follow.

      Do you want to know the truth? We cannot win in Afghanistan, to take one example. Well, we could nuke it, but there's nothing to nuke. We could spray agent orange on their poppy fields, but that's the only thing they know how to grow. We could kill everyone in that village just outside the FOB, but some of them are telling us where the IEDs are. The best we can do is keep the Taliban scared and off balance so we can se we control some piece of crap in Kandahar Province.

      There is no happy ending in Afghanistan. We should immediately pull out and let them continue to live in their same pre-indoor plumbing crapulence imposed upon them by their crappy religion, under the Taliban.

      I've had skin in this game and it wasn't fun.

      Do you wonder where the prehistoric freakin' Afghans get the wherewithal to make IEDs? Iran. It's no secret. It's practically a railway. So what do we do to Iran as our boys are getting blown to bits? We pat them on the head. I suppose we could nuke Iran, but other parties might have something to say about that because they happen to prefer that flavor of Muslims.

      I don't care about the middle east. None of it. It sucks. I've been there. More than once.

      The one thing we could do is keep any more out of our country, which is the only place they are a threat to us. I would rather hear a candidate say that he's cutting off immigration and deporting every freaking Muslim taxi driver and medical doctor that can't pass the white sheet of paper test.

      If you're going to hold forth on military matters, please cite your service and experience.

    2. No service experience here but your words are wise. God can do whatever he pleases in regards to whole populations, innocents included. We cannot. I hope He never tells Bear to drown kittens.

    3. Okay, demanding military credentials is being a fascist jerk. Although in Starship Troopers only veterans could vote, on the theory that they had proven themselves capable of putting their country ahead of individual considerations. Something to think about...

  8. If I were to place a bet, Bear, my money would be on narcissistic personality disorder.

    Even so, I have at times felt that some of the rhetoric being flung-about approaches the definition of 'fighting words' and if not yet, then given the uncritical adulation cheering on the more brazen ranting, it will devolve to such a state in time.

    1. That's why I've pretty much sat this one out. One thing I've learned over many U.S. administrations is that my life never seems to change much one way or the other. Am I saying elections are designed to pacify the masses while the real powers control everything? No. That would be crazy.

      Yes, Your Honor, narcissistic personality disorder is a good choice. Doesn't make quite the headline as "psychopath" though.

    2. Personally, Bear, if Pat Paulsen was still among us he'd have my vote this time around.

      Paulsen had a terrific campaign slogan:

      "If elected I will win." No over-promising there, Bear.

    3. LOL I remember him. On the other hand, there's Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite: "Vote for Pedro and all your wildest dreams will come true."

  9. With Hillary and Trump being the two leading candidates doesn't this suggest there is something psychopathic about the public at large who are yugely into themselves and have dead bodies to prove it, i.e,high approval of abortion.

    Don't we deserve what we get?

    1. I agree with you, Michael, that a large segment of the public, if not the world, is in the grip of diabolic disorientation. Labelling it psychopathy might be missing the root cause.

      I am ever more reminded of St. Paul's admonition to the Faithful:

      "For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.

      For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ..." Philippians 3: 18-20

      One marginally hopeful point in so far as the US elections are concerned is that the votes cast for candidates other than Trump or Clinton by far outnumber those cast for them.

      For myself, I have no horse in this race nor have I since Ronald Reagan last ran. Peace.

    2. Just want to say you are an outstanding presence in the blogosphere (in this case ephemerosphere) and your wisdom shines through. Thank you, Liam.

    3. That is very gracious of you.

  10. In the end, voting Repub cuz it's just what I do. Maybe Trump's a psychopath, but even psychopaths can make logical decisions. Huckabee has always had my heart but the poor man has never had a ghost of a chance.
    Rubio would be ok cuz he's nice to look at and his wife is pretty too.

    Seattle kim

    1. I'm thinking maybe Trump could play up the psychopath theme and turn it into a positive. "In a World Gone Mad, Only a Mad Man Can Lead." But honestly, I'm with you SP.

  11. And it is an honor to be in aggiornamento with the Bear.

    Seattle Kim


Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...