W is for "Wombs"

by Greg Method

What the hell happened to Charlton Heston?

I mean seriously, doesn't anyone else remember a time when ol' Chuck wasn't a gun-totin' nutball? Wasn't Charlton Heston once known for starring in meaningful, thought-provoking, and oftentimes progressive-thinking movies?

Look at The Omega Man, which showed us both the dangers of nuclear war but also the importance of medical and scientific breakthroughs. Or how about the creepy classic Soylent Green, a cautionary tale about how easily man can deplete his resources.

And of course, there's Planet of the Apes, perhaps one of the quintessential science fiction films of all time. Granted the whole series is usually looked upon as a whole (I could always do without Conquest of... and Battle for..., but don't you ever blow off Escape from...!), but it is that first, original classic that presents a not-too-implausible post-nuclear Earth.

And to think, Charlton Heston was in all three of these. This was back when he was the groovy Charlton Heston, the one who campaigned for Kennedy and Adlai Stevenson. This wasn't modern day angry miser Charlton Heston, the one who set up an NRA meeting near Columbine just days after the fatal school shootings, yet scurries away like a timid old man as soon as Michael Moore dares to ask him something that might be perceived in the slightest way as an opposing view. Sheesh, some leader of some brave organization, eh?

Planet of the Apes is especially interesting because of the dynamic between Heston's character, astronaut George Taylor, and wise ape leader Dr. Zaius. Taylor is perceived to be a freak of nature by the ruling apes, yet he keeps trying to explain his side of the story, how he's from another world where humans are intelligent, speaking creatures who dominate over other species. Despite how logical his explanation sounds to the intellectual chimpanzees, Zaius would hear nothing of it. Throughout the course of the film, Taylor would keep asking Zaius why he was afraid of hearing the truth, or at least hearing a side that contradicted his own. "Why are you afraid of me?"

For the most part, Bush and his entourage act the same way as Dr. Zaius. They aren't interested in hearing other sides, especially those that might offer a directly opposing view. They are only interested in their own point of view. Any other must inherently be wrong.

The key difference, however, is that Zaius acted in such a way because he knew of man's destructive power. He felt that by silencing Taylor he was protecting the various ape species from potential annihilation.

This is not the case with the Bush team. They are more interested in preventing their leader from embarrassment or ridicule. They are looking to protect him, not us. If they could stuff him back into Barbara Bush's womb, they would. They want President Bubble Boy.

For the most part, they have done their job of safely encapsulating Bush. No doubt until the debates with Kerry, Bush was probably under the impression that most of America agreed with his views and policies. Hell, he still believes that! Bush's handlers have assured him that he will rarely, if ever, be in the presence of someone who might stand up and point out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

However, this summer the extra-thick walls came a-crashing down. In August Bush had begun yet another month-long vacation, his longest one yet. In fact, the Washington Post referred to it as "the longest presidential retreat in at least thirty-six years."

Nearly 20 percent of his entire term has been spent at his Prairie Chapel Ranch near Crawford, Texas, the Neverlandesque stronghold where the good ol' boy can play with the dog and go huntin'...you know, like Paw Rugg from the Hillbilly Bears cartoons. Bush's vacations, most of which have been to his own Fortress of Redneckitude, have comprised of forty-nine trips totaling 347 days.

Just think about that number, 347 days. A calendar year is 365 days. Just for the sake of example, if we take away weekends and federal holidays from 2005, we're left with just 251 business days this year. Bush has spent over an entire business year on vacation. What, does he work for the post office??

Does 347 days sound like a lot to you? If not, then noodle this: over his two terms, President Clinton had only 152 days off. In his one term, President Carter had just seventy-nine days of vacation. Even incoherent gasbag President Reagan had only taken 335 days of vacation, a record for two-term presidents up until August 19 of this year. In fact, since the late 1970s, the only president who had more total vacation days than Dubya was none other than his father, the real President Bush, who had taken off 543 days in his mercifully short four-year term.

And it's not that I'm against vacation, either. But, isn't 347 days a bit much for a president? Or rather, for one who has pledged to not rest until Osama bin Laden was found "dead or alive?" It reminds me of that scene in the first Naked Gun: "Wilma, I promise you, whatever scum did this, not one man on this force will rest one minute until he's behind bars. Now let's grab a bite to eat."

Of course, the most talked-about of Bush's Crawford "sabbaticals" was the one shortly before the attacks of September 11, when Bush refused to read the national security briefings that were handed to him...briefings that were given such vague titles as "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Bush claims these extra-long retreats are a way for him to unwind and do a better job by "making sure my Texas roots run deep." Logically he would need a lot of time for that to happen, considering he was born in Connecticut, went to Yale and the Phillips Academy, and his family lives in Maine. It would be a little like John Kerry settling down in Mobile because he wanted to make sure his Alabama roots ran deep. Putting on a cowboy hat doesn't make you a Texan...it makes you look retarded.

Critics suggested that this latest trip was a way for Bush to avoid the increasing volume of questions related to Karl Rove, Bush's right-hand man and chief political strategist. You see, Rove had leaked the name of a CIA operative's wife to the press after the operative publicly rebuked the infamous claim that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush's raison d'etre for invading the country in early 2003.

The White House was quick to quell the notion that its boss was fleeing in terror to avoid questions and discussion about potential criminal charges, and impeachment proceedings, for his possible involvement in the Rove scandal.

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people," doughy White House press secretary Scott McClellan said shortly before this latest trek. "It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Well, if that's what Bush wanted, then that's what he got.

On August 6, Cindy Sheehan, a mother from Vacaville, California, set up camp right outside the gate to the Crawford ranch. On April 4 of last year, Cindy's 24-year-old son Casey was killed in action in Iraq, just five days after arriving in Sadr City. This past January, Cindy and nine other relatives of Iraq soldiers founded Gold Star Families for Peace, an organization dedicated to finding a way to bring troops home from Iraq safe and sound, while also providing support and comfort for other families who have lost loved ones in this unjust war.

Upon arriving in Crawford, Cindy vowed to wait outside Bush's ranch for the duration of his vacation...that is, unless he came out to meet with her and allow her to ask one very simple question: What is the "noble cause" that her son died for?

A small group of people quickly joined Cindy in her vigil, which soon ballooned into an army of thousands. The site soon adopted the name "Camp Casey."

The Bush team was quick to try to get rid of the protestors as soon as possible, all the while keeping the head chimp in seclusion. Thinking sending out two lackeys was the next best thing, just hours after Cindy arrived both National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joe Hagin met with her for forty-five minutes. Hadley told her that Bush supposedly "really cares" about the folks in uniform. Cindy replied, "You can't tell me that because I've met with him and I know that he doesn't care." But more on that in a minute.

Needless to say, meeting these two nameless blips on the political radar did not satisfy Cindy, who later told London's Guardian, "I think they thought I'd be very impressed and intimidated that these two high-level officials came to talk to this little grieving mother, and that I'd leave."

Two days later, Crawford police told Camp Casey that its inhabitants would be considered "threats to national security" and were facing arrest, which alone is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Supposedly this threat came about because both Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice were scheduled to arrive at the ranch, no doubt to wave "inconsequential" sheets of paper in front of Bush's face while he nodded wearily.

Meanwhile, Bush himself had literally gone into hiding. He wouldn't take a step out of the ranch house for most of the next week, leaving once to hold a short press conference and again to attend a $2 million barbecue fundraiser for the Republican National Committee.

At the former, Bush made an excuse as to why he refused to meet with Cindy. He claimed, "I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: 'Get out of Iraq now.' And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."

"Position" must have been the word of the day on Bush's desk calendar.

It's interesting that Bush claims to know Cindy's position, considering he refused to meet her, thus preventing her from asking the very simple question of "What is the 'noble cause' my son died for?" She didn't say she wanted to ask him to pull our troops out of Iraq. That might have been implied, but that wasn't her stated reason for being there. She wanted to know why her son was killed.

I guess it's very easy to answer someone's question if you've never heard it or pretend not to understand it.

"The president says he feels compassion for me," Cindy responded, "but the best way to show that compassion is by meeting with me and the other mothers and families who are here. All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq."

These appearances by the drunk-in-chief were rare during his supposed working vacation. He didn't go about to doing his usual ranch things, such as riding bikes or reading books about salt, until August 13, a good week after Cindy first arrived.

What does it say when a single person can cause a president to go into almost complete seclusion for a week? Cindy clearly didn't pose a threat to him, so it certainly wasn't a safety precaution. What message does it send out when a president is afraid to walk down a driveway and speak to someone face to face?

What, was Bush thinking that Cindy was just a plant? Was he afraid that he would go out there, shake her hand, and find out that she was a kamikaze human bomb?

Or maybe, just maybe, was he afraid of someone confronting him head on with an argument that he couldn't worm, smirk, or nickname his way out of?

Let's say for the sake of argument that that's what Bush was worried about. So what? What's the worst that could have happened? That Bush might actually--gasp!--regret launching this charade of a war? That he would actually feel remorse for the 26,000-plus Americans and Iraqis that have been killed because of his own perverse agenda?

If he is so confident with his reasons for going to war, how it is meant to protect us and to prevent the next September 11, then why didn't he meet with her? In his mind he had a strong case, so what did he have to lose?

Or could it be that, deep down, he knew he was full of shit?

Before I go back to my online analyzing, I must veer slightly off-topic for a bit to talk about my favorite part of the whole Cindy Sheehan vigil: the "counter-protestors."

Why is it that whenever someone takes a very personal stance, there is always some redneck out there who wants to argue with that person? And I'm not talking about two people arguing about the war, or the economy, or Bush's cleaned-up criminal record to remove the charge of cocaine possession. This is a woman who suffered a very personal loss, the death of her son, and she wants to find some kind of emotional closure for that by talking to the man who caused his death. What, exactly, is there to argue about?

Why aren't we allowed to have our own personal views anymore? Why do people feel they need to try to argue how you feel or what you need? I'm telling you, the funniest part of this was when the "counter-protest" group offered to debate Cindy at their makeshift Fort Qualls camp in downtown Crawford. Uhh, debate about what?!?

"My son was killed on April 4, 2004."
"But Mrs. Sheehan, isn't it true that Iraq is eleven hours ahead of your own local time?"
"I suppose so, yes."
"So, how do you know for sure that he actually died on the fourth?!?"
"Look, I just want to know what my son was killed for."
"And what makes you think you have any right to ask anyone??"
"Because my son gave up his life for his country."
"Your son could have gone AWOL, Mrs. Sheehan, if he really didn't believe in this war!"
"My son wouldn't betray his military, regardless of what he's asked to do."
"Mrs. Sheehan, why do you hate America so much?"

And so on and so on and so on. As you can see, it would have been a very fruitful discussion.

But again, why do these Bible-thumping, faux-patriotic hillbillies come out of the woodwork whenever someone dares to say something slightly negative about Bush? Do they think that because they bought a cheap magnetic ribbon that they're somehow a better authority on America than you and me?

Look at what happened last year when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out. Nobody outside of the NRA gave two shits about what Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine, yet suddenly all these people nobody's ever heard of pop up to present "counter-films." How do you counter someone's own personal perspective anyway?? "He's wrong for believing that because...."

Hell, John Kerry was perceived to be so much of a threat that Karl Rove funded a group to make stuff up about Kerry's war record!

I think when people nowadays claim to be "patriotic," their loyalty is often misplaced. Your love for America should go beyond just one man or one party. You should be patriotic because you believe in your country and its ideals, not because some jag-off in a hardhat poses for a picture next to some rubble. If you're so "patriotic" that you cannot see the damage Bush has done to this country, then maybe you were never really patriotic to begin with, because you clearly aren't concerned about the well-being of your country.

But like I said, "counter-protestors" are funny, mainly because their very presence legitimizes the message the original protestor is conveying. They're saying, "Yes, this person has a point, and we're afraid of people hearing about it." If you don't feel that someone's protest has any bearing, then why bother responding to it?

Or rather, let's use this analogy: A bully starts picking on kids at an elementary school. The kids band together and take their case to the principal, who then summons the bully to his office. As the kids confront the bully about it in the office, he starts socking them in the stomach. The bully has just given the other kids' claim credibility.

That's pretty much how it is with "counter-protestors." They're desperate to get rid of the protestors...why would they unless the protestors' charge had some validity?

Take, for example, redneck supreme Larry Mattlage, who, unprovoked, began firing a shotgun in the direction of Camp Casey on August 14. Larry's land was not being used for the protests, nobody had invaded his property, nor was he harassed by any of the protestors, yet still he felt the need to potentially endanger someone's life (in a delicious sense of irony, Larry's cousin Fred offered Cindy's crew his own land for a bigger campsite, one even closer to Bush's ranch!). Or how about the case of criminally insane Waco resident Larry Northern (another Larry?), who drove his pickup truck over hundreds of small white crosses that were planted alongside the road leading to the Bush ranch, crosses that each represented a soldier killed in Iraq. For a fifth of a mile, Mr. Northern desecrated these memorials to the men and women Bush sent off to die for twisted personal reasons.

Perhaps most comically, a couple of "counter-protestors" had entered the Fort Qualls camp with some confusingly sarcastic signs, signs that from the top half looked as if they were actually pro-Democrat. Well, the two were immediately attacked by Bush people, having their signs ripped to shreds and being aggressively shoved out of Fort Qualls. The dumb backward mob didn't realize they were Bush supporters until after they had already thrown them out.

What a bunch of true "patriots," eh?

It could also be that we all just feel we're too self-important, and so we simply feel left out if someone has a personal reason to protest. Sure enough, a pro-Bush group called Move America Forward (and I should point out the hypocrisy in such a group calling itself Move America Forward, considering Bush ran for election last year on a platform of the status quo) launched a bus tour called "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy." Well okay, but who ever said she was speaking for you?? How self-centered can a person be when they are bothered that a grieving mother's personal campaign wasn't directly considering them?

Anyway, press coverage of Camp Casey increased to a fever pitch and related vigils across the country sprang up. The anti-war crowd was clearly motivated again to do something.

With his back against the wall, and with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress urging him to meet with Cindy, Bush did the only decent thing he could do...he took a vacation from his vacation!

Beginning August 20, Bush headed out of Crawford for a five-day campaign, through states so red they bleed, to defend his invasion of Iraq. He defended the war to such bustling metropolises as Donnelly, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah. He embarked on this unscheduled tour at the taxpayers' expense (we do pay for his increasingly costly gas, you know) when instead all he could have done was walk down to his front gate and listen.

Even after one appearance, Bush outright lied to the press, claiming, "Well, I did meet with Cindy Sheehan... She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it."

This isn't so much a lie as it is more a bending of the truth. Bush did meet with Cindy...shortly after her son's death. But again, more on that in a minute.

Ultimately, Bush never ended up going down the drive to meet with Cindy. He even cut short his vacation by two days in order to not do anything for the poor, black victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Cindy would leave Crawford soon afterward, getting ready to embark on a multiroute anti-war bus tour of the country, with all three buses converging on Washington on September 21. Cindy told the Associated Press, "I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful [Bush] did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement... If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."

So it all goes back to the question, why didn't he meet with her?

I think perhaps the more interesting question is, would Bush have gone down to the gate if it was instead someone's father demanding to speak with him? What if it was not a mother who helped establish the Gold Star Families for Peace but rather one of the "NASCAR dads" Bush was so desperate for support from?

I know I played the anti-female card last year, but this is a little different. Bush seems to have very little respect for mothers, his own excluded of course. His own wife's current role is nothing more than as a passive, repressed nanny.

Last year, mothers were used for political gain. A new term was coined, "security moms," in the hope that the Bush campaign could exploit their fears of future terrorist attacks. He manipulated the fears that every mother no doubt had when they saw the Twin Towers fall because Bush neglected to read security briefings on vacation.

"Don't vote for Kerry. He'll kill your child."

Bush really believes that he knows mothers like the back of his hand, as he probably used the back of his hand to interface with his wife during his many drunken tantrums over the years. The proof of his false understanding is in his August 24 speech to another key segment of the population, the families of the Idaho National Guard.

As a way to sort of refute Cindy's grief, Bush threw the spotlight on Tammy Pruett, whose four sons are currently serving in the National Guard in Iraq and whose husband and other son have already returned from the warzone.

"America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts," Bush garbled.

To Bush, this should have been enough. He found another mother with more sons than Cindy had, period. What's left to discuss?

Of course, the difference is that none of Tammy's five sons were killed in Iraq. In fact, when Tammy was later interviewed, she was asked how she would feel about Cindy's group if she had also lost someone in the war.

"Actually, I would agree with them completely," she answered. "I have not experienced what they experienced, and I wouldn't judge how they chose to express their grief."

You see? Bush doesn't understand mothers, which just goes back to the fact that he doesn't understand anyone not like him or his base: rich, privileged, religious white men. He doesn't get that there is no greater tragedy for a mother than to lose one of her children, and that utter anguish is enough to turn even the staunchest of Republicans into the most liberal of Democrats (and vice versa, for that matter). When you lose your kid, you've lost the world.

Sadly enough, Cindy is no different from thousands of other parents who have been directly affected by Bush's actions. Cindy simply channeled that grief into something constructive.

Meanwhile, Bush has refused to attend any fallen soldier's funeral, and for over a year the White House had refused to release any photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq. Yet, Bush has been meeting privately with families since the war began, and it was in one of those meetings that Bush first met Cindy Sheehan.

In June 2004, two months after Casey had been killed, the Sheehans were brought to a private room in the White House to meet Bush, as they were one in an assembly line of fifteen or so different families that were invited because they had all lost a relative in Iraq. Each family is placed in its own room to hopefully prevent severe outbursts...them there emotions don't do well in Zogby polls.

Bush stumbled into the room to meet the Sheehans, a not-too-bright look on his face. And as if his entrance couldn't have been more inappropriate already, in a condescending tone he bellowed, "Who we'all honorin' here today?"...you know, as if he was a family dentist getting ready to perform a minor filling on you.

"Who we'all honorin' here today?" What, did you plum forget how many you've been killin', Junior?

"His mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all," Cindy recalled to the press in July. "This is a human being totally disconnected from humanity and reality. His eyes were empty, hollow shells and he was acting like I should be proud to just be in his presence when it was my son who died for his illegal war! It was one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it."

Bush didn't even have the decency to address Cindy as "Mrs. Sheehan," or "Cindy" for that matter. He kept calling her "Ma" and "Mom"...as if he was some friend of the family or something. He would offer such empty platitudes as "Mom, I can't even imagine losing a loved one, a mother or a father or a sister or a brother."

"Trust me, you don't want to go there," Cindy replied.

Bush chuckled, "You're right, I don't."

"Well, thanks for putting me there."

First of all, I don't care how much a "man of the people" you believe yourself to be, that doesn't give you the right to refer to a stranger as "Mom," especially to a mother who had just lost her son because you sent him off to die. It doesn't sound warm and familiar. It just sounds creepy. If Bush truly understood mothers, he would have known better. Grieving mothers don't need a "chum" from their president.

But also, it clearly shows Bush's attitude toward mothers. They're all just placeholders to him, not real people with real emotions and real problems. They're part of that background of people when he stands at a podium to pat himself on the back. "You're not Mrs. Sheehan, you're just 'Mom,' no different from the fifteen other 'Moms' I met today."

"The whole meeting was simply bizarre and disgusting, designed to intimidate instead of providing compassion," Cindy explained. "He didn't even know our names."

At one point during the encounter, Cindy looked Bush in the eye and said, "I think you can imagine losing someone. You have two daughters. Imagine losing them?" Bush responded by staring blankly at her, either because he didn't understand what she meant or was no doubt biting his tongue to not say some snarky remark that would come back and bite him in the ass.

Don't think it could be the latter? Well, when Cindy's 25-year-old daughter Carley spoke to Bush, the tension in the room became palpable.

Carley said, "I wish I could bring my loved one back."

Bush mumbled back "So do we" and then shot Carley a contemptible dirty look.

Some comfort, eh?

"I just couldn't believe this was happening," Cindy recalled. "It was so surreal and bizarre. Later I met with some of the other fifteen or sixteen families who were at the White House the same day and, sure enough, they all felt the same way I did... Looking back, all I can say is that the meeting with Bush was one of the most disgusting experiences in my life."

And yet, Cindy was willing to do it all over again, meet with this disgusting imbecile who scowled at her daughter after killing her son, just to ask him what her son died for.

Is Bush right for not doing it? Hey, after all, why should he meet with this mom again? He's going to meet with many other moms soon enough anyway. Shouldn't that be enough?

Like I said, he just doesn't understand mothers. Neither do I, having never been one, for that matter, but I'm not going to pretend to in the hope that it makes me come off as compassionate.

If Bush really understood what mothers wanted from him, then there wouldn't have been the need for a group of Annapolis women to form Mothers Opposing Bush, a political action committee comprising of over 24,000 mothers from all ends of the political spectrum, including numerous former Bush supporters.

"Mothers are not generally very politically active," explained MOB president Ginger Woolridge to a crowd at the city's Stanton Center last April. "What is going to turn these women into political activists is health care and education, which is our country's real wealth... Mothers are busy. Mothers are tired. To get our message to moms, we realize we have to make it as easy as can be to get the facts."

According to the group's web site, MOB.org (which is currently being reformatted to reflect the group's new moniker, MOBilizing Mothers), their core beliefs are....

1. We believe in defending our borders and supporting our troops. We need a president who is respected in the world community and who leads by example. Terrorism must be attacked through diplomacy and global cooperation rather than unilateralism. Resources need to be immediately directed to first responders in the United States.

2. Our president should not practice "borrow and spend" fiscal management. Our children will pay the debt we incur today. They will pay higher federal and state taxes, and receive fewer services. We are seeing it now! Higher interest rates will follow as well.

3. The president of the wealthiest nation in history must demand comprehensive health insurance for all of our children.

4. A well-rounded education is critical to the success of our children, our country, and our future. Education is the most indispensable element of an American ethos which encourages innovation, competition, and success. America must remove the barriers to entry and advance a level playing field to all who seek to access higher education. Accordingly, we require a president who has practical solutions for educational excellence beginning with pre-school and crossing all levels of society. We believe in the power of Head Start, the Free Lunch program, and After School Care, because a hungry child cannot learn.

5. Our president needs to understand that official indifference to the pollution of the environment cannot be tolerated in favor of corporate convenience and profit. Alternative energy sources must be developed to reduce our dependence on petroleum. Our families need smart growth and livable communities. The president must be an effective steward of our nation's environment and national resources and must be an active and vocal advocate for clean air, clean water, and clean, renewable energy.

The president is our nation's chief civil servant. He works for us.

Now, knowing that the above is what a large number of mothers want, does it sound to you like Bush understands them at all?

Bush recently said, "I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say... So I'm mindful of what goes on around me."

But, if that was really true, then why does he avoid mothers he can't pigeonhole into an easy-to-understand stereotype? Do you really think that Bush would be placed anywhere near a mother representing the above values, or one that wants to confront him about Iraq? Of course not. The White House has insulated Bush to the point where not a single opposing person or platform can reach him...and he seems to like it that way. It makes him feel safe, like in a womb.

See? It all goes back to motherhood...wombs. George W. Bush is living in a womb. That's kinda fitting, considering the other female reproductive body part he resembles.

--Greg


Quote of the Month

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president. That's part of the job. And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say...but, I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."
Bush on how he is able to continue his leisurely vacation knowing that grieving parents and families are right outside his front door

Link of the Month
Bring Them Home Now Tour
Cindy and the pro-peace gang are coming to your town, and they want answers. Join them!