Birthers and Perkins V Elg

"That is not “calling names.” That my patriot challenged friend is dedication to the constitution and the freedoms it preserves.You care little about that., SO what are you even doing here?Trying to spin and cork the truth? Too late."

If you haven't noticed, I'm ignoring you - much like I ignore the teen-aged busboy who cleans my table at dinner.

I would tell you to pick up a book and read, but I don't think that going to cure the disorder from which you suffer.

“We go by the Constitution, not feelings.”

Thereby you are still contradicting yourself!

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_5.html !!

Your postings here resembles when your pal John sKerry went to Paris meeting with the Vietcong!!!

ODH = much like I ignore the teen-aged busboy who cleans my table at dinner.

WOW, what an arrogant SOB, a total elitist that look at you like Charles Gibson looked at Sarah Palin!!!

Thats OK,he is an elitist. You know, has a lot in comommon with the Obama junta craggies who come here and think they can pose as conservatives.

Buahahahahaha!

Wrong politics in the wrong place.

His only joy is to be a pain in the A$$ to genuine conservatives.

Makes for good entertainment.

These rogues would have us ruled by the tyranny of political correctness rather than law. It is such a simple difference, so simple that most miss it. I believe such idiots should be confronted by their folly, and conofroted with their usurpation of our freedoms.They are hardly conservatives.

Yes, dan, you call names. You have also said my kids should be ashamed of their father, although I'd wager I've sacrificed more for my country than you have.

C7: "You would chose faux details over liberty. Obama’s non qualification is a usurpation of the Constitution, a vile attempt to create our nation as a country ruled not by laws but by political correctness."

No, I choose the law & Constitution. I know you disagree with the interpretation of NBC used by the Courts, but you are not a dictator, and you do not get to impose your personal definition of anything on the rest of America.

Like dan, you can call names, but you cannot win in the arena of ideas. The courts have no role to play in removing a sitting President. And based on stuff I've read written years prior to Obama, the only controversy over NBC was a McCain-type case - when can a person born abroad be considered a NBC. For those born in the US, there was unanimity that anyone born in the US qualified.

That is why both McCain & Palin refuse to advance birther claims, and why EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS has likewise refused. That is why birthers have lost every case - and yes, getting your case thrown out of court is LOSING.

As for dan and Vietnam, my Dad was killed in Vietnam. It was his third war. I was 14 when he died. Later, I spent over 25 years in the military, with my last combat tour in Afghanistan in 2007. My two oldest kids served in Iraq, and one is trying to switch to a unit deploying to Afghanistan, although it isn't looking hopeful right now.

But you are a big, tough, Internet warrior! You can toss insults without ever doing a damn thing. All mouth, no soul.

Getting ready at Ft Sill 2006 (without my bifocals):

A temp stop at Bagram - my fellow officers, 3 outstanding Lt Cols, I admire each of them:

Jalalabad PX 2007:

But you mighty Internet Warriors won't care. You just mouth off without reading or researching the law, and then call anyone who disagrees with you a traitor. I'll let anyone who reads this thread decide for themselves who is mouth, and who is not...

Thank you for your service to our nation. But your politics are flawed. Obama must reveal his true details about his birth, He has hidden and obscured his birth and his past.

To chose otherwise as a political position is to accept the tyranny of rule by political correctness, the mark of all tyranincal regimes, including the one you were fighting during deployment.

Obama seeks to rule by race based political corectness. A patriot choses to govern by the Constitution, including Article II , section one.

Not pointing this out to you is a diservice to your history of sacrifice for our nation.

I will never accept goverment in any other form but the constitution, Too many men like you have sacrificed to protect it. Obama seeks to rule and circumvent the consitution on the presidential qualification issue, a treasonous usurping tyrant. And for that he must pay, sooner or later, so that the nation will never be so threatened from within again.

My politics may be flawed, ignorant, or even stupid. My legal reasoning may be worse. I’m not a lawyer.

Those are valid possibilities, and I don’t object when someone says I’m blind, foolish or below average IQ.

I do take exception to ‘traitor’, or to someone telling me my kids should be ashamed of me. My father was an inspiration to me, and I assume my two oldest kids took some note of my example.

My ideas are open to attack. My love of country is not. Feel free to say I’m blind and stupid...there are times my wife would agree with you! But I do not hate my country, or wish her harm.

I get the feeling that you do not even know who Obama and his Junta are, or what they represent: rule by tyranny. , You seem to think you ahave the convenience of academic debate on the issue of his birth. Not really. Obama needs to be fought on every front and defeated. He wages political war against the people.He is not a president. He is an enemy who has lied his way into the highest office of our nation. He must be defeated and turned out of the office as soon as possible.

This may help:

May 12, 2009 Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
“They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.” - Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results. In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of its millions of callous murders.
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years. As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.” They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him. As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned. But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims. Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment. ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke. Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots. Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power. For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change: The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“...there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s...His worldview is distinctly fascistic. Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will. Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma. All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning...But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power. Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky. Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode. Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means: “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people. It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war
. A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.” Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.” The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.” Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s change.gov. Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler. As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive. Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination. Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176) Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor. Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement.
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing. And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct. But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false. That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA. As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma. This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade. This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity. Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they - like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise. Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then? Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.” What is the appeal of unity?
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him. It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices. Nevertheless, the yearning continues. It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous. As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many. But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises - of class, nation, or race - and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate. (Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens. Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism: The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone. It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler. Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note: Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States. Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was. However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it: hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember. Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon.
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America. The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil. It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.
****************************************
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html

I thank you Mr. Rogers for your service as well as your families service.

I apologize that sometimes it does get very rough debating this subject around here. I tend to on some days get very cranky on what I want natural born to actually mean.

I do wish that SCOTUS would someday give us a definition of what a natural born should be or was meant to be. I also realize that as time passes and more progressives get into our court system, I feel that this precious status will no longer have the meaning that I think it was intended to have.

I wish that everyone felt that the American dream was something worth fighting for and once you embraced America and became a citizen that you then had the right to bestow natural born status to your children. It has turned into a throw away statement. I can cross a border, have my child and that child is now considered a natural born citizen. I don’t like it at all. I do however appreciate your time in debating this issue.

Now that I’ve said I way too many times, I will move on.

My Dad, circa 1965

Um excuse me??? I didn’t say that. In case you didn’t know it, I thought I was on your side. I am kinda confused here. CO

When people resort to attacking your character, faith, and patriotism, you know they have a deficient argument because they can no longer defend their position with logic, much less with facts.

You still have time tio reconsider betraying your country.

Please look closely at who Barack Obama and his Junta truly are. If you see that, you will kow what OI mean.

Thnaks Mr. Rogers. We all love you and respect you. But the time for political battle approaches.

PS Thanks for the phoptos of yor last deployment barracks.
I particularly enh\joyed seeing that sniper rifle locked in its case under the colonel’s bed.

Yes, dan, you call names.

Show me where and when?

No, I choose the law & Constitution.

So do we, and I swore to do that when I became a U.S. citizen and I never forget that, including that your dear leader is NOT a NBC, but got his foot into the White House by fraud and you still approve of it. I DON'T, because he committed a crime against the Constitution, period!

The courts have no role to play in removing a sitting President.

That's your petty opinion, but when a crime is committed, by your dear leader and certainly also by one part of Congress, that crime can ONLY be settled by the court, NOT by the ballot box!!

And based on stuff I've read written years prior to Obama, the only controversy over NBC was a McCain-type case - when can a person born abroad be considered a NBC.

With your sharp military mind (ref. to all your great photos) has it never occurred to you strange that five democRATic Senators would sponsor a Senate resolution to make McCain eligible. Why did that resolution surfaced by the DNC-member sponsors including your dear leader and Hillary, if it was not to fool the American people, including you and cover for your dear leader's illegalities??

As for dan and Vietnam, my Dad was killed in Vietnam.

I have no reason to believe your Dad was NOT an honorable man, and certainly sympathize with your grievance and terrible lost. That said I don't see that you honor his memories of being victim of Vietnam, because your postings here against an honorable man Ltc. Lakin & your dear leader resembling to what John sKerry did in Paris still being in uniform!!!

That is why both McCain & Palin refuse to advance birther claims,

Yes McCain because of the resolution I mentioned above, but this the problem with you misleading that Palin is refusing, that's far from the truth. She would have loved to thread your dear leader's qualifications to pieces, but John's campaign put a muzzle on her!!!!

But you mighty Internet Warriors won't care. You just mouth off without reading or researching the law, and then call anyone who disagrees with you a traitor. I'll let anyone who reads this thread decide for themselves who is mouth, and who is not...

ODH tried to denigrate my credentials also, so go to my response to him and see comparison of Apples to Oranges, which naturally in his elitists mindset was that my English (which is my third language) was not good enough to understand his lawyer language sufficiently. Have a nice evening!!!!!

And lastly again YOU have not used name-calling???

Your post speaks for itself.

One additional comment, to clarify things for folks:

Under “Stupid Controversies”, Sarah Palin wrote (Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 10:16pm):

“Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/stupid-conspiracies/188707498434

I have no reason to believe your Dad was NOT an honorable man, and certainly sympathize with your grievance and terrible lost. That said I don't see that you honor his memories of being victim of Vietnam, because your postings here against an honorable man Ltc. Lakin & your dear leader resembling to what John sKerry did in Paris still being in uniform!!!

It is absolutely unconscionable to suggest that Mr Rogers is dishonoring his father's death in Vietnam based solely on his comments regarding LTC Lakin's court martial. His belief that LTC Lakin stands no chance of obtaining discovery of Obama's birth certificate is based on a reasonable interpretation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is shared by many far more knowledgeable in the UCMJ.

And comparing Mr Rogers to John Kerry, who accused his fellow servicemen of war crimes during his testimony to Congress, is even more disgusting and reprehensible. The sad thing is that you don't have the character to be ashamed of yourself.

Furthermore, if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he didn't "commit a crime against the Constitution" because the Constitution does not define who is a natural born citizen. And since the SCOTUS has never ruled on a circumstance like Obama's, there is no precedent established that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

That's why we need a SCOTUS ruling.

A constitutional issue is NOT a stupid controversy. Only the ideologically challenged would think so. Palin also would not say it is a stupid controversy , even though that is the header. What she said was that people have a right to ask. As a mater of fact the State of Arizona has passed a law accordingly, to vet all presidential candidates in the future. Some ideologically challenged think it politically incorrect to insist on asking the cogent questions of Obama based on Article II section 1 of the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, not a nation "ruled " by fascist political correctness. Obama has concealed the facts of his birth. It is plain for ALL to see. He has done that despite a duty he has to comply with the Constitution. Its really not rocket science. Palin may have an ideological stand to take as a potential presidential candidate, and agree to tow the politically correct line on the issue, avoiding beig branded as a "nut job" by the left. A badge , BTW that we birthers wear proudly, simply because we know that we are a nation of laws, not a bunch of sheep to be ruled by political correctness. You who accept such rule are slaves to the next political, correctness fad, the whim of the "king" you all seem so desperate to find , bow down to, and accept as your lord and master, licking the hand of a "noble" man? How American? Buahahahahaha!

I pity all who think that way. May the chains of your politically correct masters rest lightly upon you.

Should they bring their chains for me, I will spit on them, and meet them with force majeur.

It was addressed to Mrs. Rogers and cc to you!!!

I do take exception to ‘traitor’, or to someone telling me my kids should be ashamed of me. My father was an inspiration to me, and I assume my two oldest kids took some note of my example.

You are trying to justify your previous name calling. Let me just explain to you. In my young boyhood I personally lived five (5) grueling years under Hitler's tyranny when he invaded my former home country on April 9, 1940!

I know how it is to live under condition where the Wehrmacht stole all our food and our coal to heat our houses. 1940 & 41 was one of the coldest winter there ever. We could walk across the North Sea to a small island on the west coast. MY father was a Fish Exporter and totally lost his business the day Hitler attacked!!

So when I see you constantly protect a criminal, your dear leader, and you desert your own fellow soldier with the rank as you, Terry Lakin, then I surely have NO respect for your previous service, and still feel sorry for such children and I NEVER said they should be ashamed, please don't put words in other people's mouth!!!