At least two non-citizens voted in King County in November, according to county records.
Chun C Chen of 7th Ave NE, Seattle
and
Ming Y Anderson of 6th Ave S, Seattle
are listed in the Dec. 29 and Jan. 7 versions of the voter database as permanent absentee voters, credited with voting absentee in November 2004.
They are also listed in the cancelled registrations file (which I obtained today pursuant to my public records request) as having their registrations cancelled earlier in 2005 with reason code "NOT A US CITIZEN". Two other individuals have had their registrations cancelled since Nov. 1, 2004 for the same reason, but were not credited with voting.
Ming Y Anderson is also credited with voting in the September 2004 primary, the February 2004 special election for the Seattle School District Levy and the November 2003 general election.
Non-citizens are even harder to identify than felons and dead people as there don't seem to be readily accessible databases with citizenship or immigration status data. But one suspects these two cases are just the tiny tip of a large iceberg.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 08, 2005 05:20 PM | Email ThisHave you looked at Western down by the viaduct lately? Dozens of day workers from Mexico working under the table for whomever shows up.
I don't know what they do at INS but it certainly isn't control illegals.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 06:10 PMAlso, if it is available, you might check the list of those arrested and released (catch and release) for being illegal alliens in the USA.
Peter Rice
Posted by: Peter Rice on March 8, 2005 06:56 PMSomeone out to tell them that "catch and release" is for the fish and wildlife department only, not part of the INS.
Posted by: Adriel on March 8, 2005 07:04 PMAt the Mexican polling station, there is a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there's a doubt as to someone's identity, the poll workers and observers can simply look up the person's name and see if the photo matches up.
The Mexican voter’s thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he’s already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)"
Until proof of citizenship is required to register and vote, and penalties for violations are levied, it seems likely that non-citizens will continue to vote with ease in WA state.
There is something extremely squirrely going on in this state as far as loopholes and leniency for illegal aliens!
The 'tip of the iceberg' is a huge understatement
Thank you for that information. It is humbling to realize that the old phrase "banana republic election" seems to apply more to elections in the USA than to the erstwhile "banana republics".
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 08:09 PMThe Republicans have made it as clear as the Democrats that they will do nothing effective to halt illegal immigration. (If that's not correct, I'd appreciate seeing some information to the contrary.) Given this, my biggest decision each election is not who to vote for, but whether I will vote. Has Dino Rossi said anything about how he proposes to deal with illegal immigration?
Posted by: Boonie on March 8, 2005 08:36 PMGive it up, losers. If this is the best you can do, you're truly a joke.
Talk about tilting at windmills...
Posted by: Nelson on March 8, 2005 08:41 PMHey, Iconoclast, you're really a riot!
The names that come up were: CHUN C CHEN & MING Y ANDERSON.
I don't think they were Mexican...
Posted by: Nelson on March 8, 2005 08:44 PMBush is doing something about it. We need the labor source for jobs Americans don't want, we have an illegal immigration problem. He has proposed a solution which includes cracking down on businesses which employ illegals.
Nelson, I assume that in 2000, when you were all whining and moaning about the election being "stolen" you were probably up in arms. No "tilting at windmills" comments then? Doesn't matter that you were proven 100% wrong. Now you have nothing better to do than troll conservative websites hoping that we'll give up and go home when you actually steal an election? We're fed up with your crap and are fighting back and you can't stand it.
Posted by: Calvin A on March 8, 2005 09:22 PMGive it up, losers. If this is the best you can do, you're truly a joke.
Talk about tilting at windmills..."
That's at least the sixth time I have seen that post. Evidently you are getting concerned even desperate by repeating that same old ridiculous message. That message has become a joke, keeping spinning - but expect you'll keep getting met head on.
Chew2 - we'll see how things are after the next hearing. Until then - keep spinning and bloviating !
This testimony is just more fuel for the fire - and it will blaze away in the courtroom... New Governor's election in November 2005.
Posted by: KS on March 8, 2005 09:41 PMGet real ! When there was a 129 vote difference in the last recount, thousands of votes is a significant difference. Zapporo do the math ! or were you being sarcastic ?
Posted by: KS on March 8, 2005 09:47 PMBTW, the mexicans are hard workers, and most of them know what a fair wage is, unlike liberal gov't bloggers, like torridjoe & DPK.
You have identified one of the achilles heels of the Republican party. If the Democrats had the character to really address the illegal alien problem (health care costs, education costs, legal system costs, security issues), they could steal a real march on the Republicans. LOTS of votes could easily be siphoned off at the expense of a bunch of illegals who shouldn't be here in the first place.
That is clearly what Hillary considered when she made her remarks on illegals. But until the Dems really address the problem, instead of protecting every wetback they can find from "undue harassment" and providing extensive state and federal benefits, then they will never get the vote of those of us who feel strongly about this issue.
As far as criminalizing the hiring of illegals, I believe that was a policy instituted under Reagan. Only in the last 8-10 years has it not been enforced. And the INS has been tied up in knots with bogus consitutional considerations for illegals. I remember having to check the citizenship of my employees and filing the appropriate form to ensure that I had done so.
So be cautious about accusing rank and file conservatives (read classical liberals) with agreement with Bush on this issue. The "big tent" is more than a little fractious on that issue.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 10:34 PMAnd yes, Hillary is tapping into the right topic to beome Prez in '08. I'm a moderate and voted for Bush cause I thought he was more moderate than Kerry. But if Hillary crusades against illegal immigration, she's got my vote!
Posted by: saxa on March 8, 2005 11:04 PMAlmost every other democratic country on this planet closely guards its elections from non-citizens.
Participating in elections is a right, for sure, but it is a right of citizenship. I have no more right to vote in Mexico's or Russia's elections than do non-citizens here have a right to choose our leaders, decide on referenda and support initiatives.
This is not a high school civics class. The right to vote is sacred and we need to protect it from abuse by those who have not earned it through citizenship.
The truth about the alien vote would surprize most honest folks. La Raza and other Dem allies have for the last 25 years been signing up non-citizens in lax states like Washington. No one knows the real numbers and no one wants to find out.
Did a few hundred felons really make that much difference in the Rossi election? How about the Cantwell race?
Posted by: DeadWood on March 8, 2005 11:31 PM"..."The net result of these reports is widespread confusion and a profound sense of fear and distrust among the Latino community. Due to the activities, there has been
a tremendous impact detrimental to our Latino community, the agricultural sector of my state's economy, and to business in the local
communities in general. Further, it is my understanding that many Latino families are afraid to leave their homes, that children are being kept home from day care, and that many Latinos are not reporting to work."
Is she really talking about legal immigrants being afraid to leave their homes because they are latino? How completely absurd. Cantwell doesn't hide that fact that she campaigns on behalf of illegal immigrants. Another tidbit from her email to me:
"As an elected official and representative of the state of Washington, it is my duty to find ways to address matters of importance to all who
live in the state regardless of their status of citizenship."
Gee, sounds real supportive of law enforcement..
Posted by: saxa on March 8, 2005 11:45 PMThese aliens are great workers and in many cases that are filling the jobs that Americans won't do. If they want to be a part of our workforce in return for more than they can make in their own country, great. Especially if they are paying US taxes.
I just don't want them to vote until they become naturalized citizens. We've got enough actual US citizens voting Democrat who can scarcely read the ballot and who are simply programmed to vote by GOTV handlers, most likely for money, booze, etc. Voting requires a basic knowledge of the ballot, issues, candidates, etc. It's not something that should be taken lightly by an alien who has recently come to our country to work, but otherwise has no knowledge of our political structure.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 9, 2005 12:43 AMCan you tell me with a straight face that the GOP has ever seriously supported a cracked down on the employers who profit from the illegals. No way. Not Reagan, not anybody. The employer class are their biggest contributors. Guys like JeffB's cousin are making too much money off of them.
Businesses have to keep records. It's far easier to make them enforce the immigration requirement, by hefty fines, imprisonment etc. They have a lot more to lose, than a poor illegal immigrant who will just come back. It would be far more effective than building a wall at the border.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2005 08:47 AMThanks for the info on website..FAIR (www.fairus.org)...interesting & scary!
Great highway billboard near Chehalis, on the way to Olympia yesterday for the marriage rally:
"WELCOME TO AMERICA....NOW SPEAK ENGLISH"
Posted by: Susu on March 9, 2005 08:54 AMWhile I would never disclose personal information on a blog like this, I can assure you that I never, ever worked for any local, state or federal govt. agency. And as for your concept that only people on the "public dole," as you put it, are liberals or moderates, I would emphatically cite 2 facts to you.
Those facts are George Soros and Warren Buffett!
For the record, the true strength of the far right wing in the Republican Party is not made up of upper middle income business owners, but of lower income white male characters who in another time we would have referred to as "rednecks."
But far be it from me to generalize like that. Only a right wing nut would actually do that!
Posted by: Nelson on March 9, 2005 09:26 AMRemind me what those questions were and I'll see if I can answer them to your satisfaction.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 09:30 AM"We've got enough actual US citizens voting Democrat who can scarcely read the ballot and who are simply programmed to vote by GOTV handlers, most likely for money, booze, etc."
Here are some statistics to use the next time this subject comes up:
Education Levels:
http://www.topalli.com/blue/degrees.html
Government Handouts:
http://www.topalli.com/blue/tax.html
Earnings:
http://www.topalli.com/blue/success.html
Something to chew on,
Mike
Now there is something Nellie just wrote that got my eyes... George Soros and Warren Buffett supported the loser.. oops... John Kerry. He's right about that, but as we know Demoncats are just as rich and wealthy but they are just more stupid.
At least the rednecks are known for their actions. It's the liberals who say one thing and then practice something else. Why else do you Demoncats want us to stuff the election, stop the "whining" as you say Nellie, unless of course it gets too close for comfort?
In the Bible Matthew Chapter 23 Jesus talks about the 8 "Woes". The one I like best is the dead mens bones. That's what we have in the Demoncats, people full of dead mens bones. Why? Because while Stefan is trying to evelate our state by documenting fraud and problems, Nellie, Unkle Wizz, and others just can't stand the truth. They want the lies and unfair voting policies to continue. In the Bible it also says that all issues will eventually see the light of day. They are afraid that these errors will see the light of day too soon for their lives.
Pudster.
Posted by: Puddybud on March 9, 2005 09:53 AMOther than some fairly extravagant characterizations about what liberals and Dem's think and do, you might find we have a lot in common. Most of us work real jobs and have ends to meet as well. We don't need drains on our income that very bad public policy, senseless wars in Iraq, and a pointless revote would cost.
We would like to be let the hell alone too. But we also recognize the need for some very legitimate public (read government) functions. Like a law-enforcement agency that protects us from crime, a transportation agency that builds roads and provides other ways of getting where we need to go, a fire dept that comes to help us when we set the house on fire or have a medical emergency, a school system that educates our children and all other children for the benefit of society, and an armed force that protects our nation from international agression. We also know these things cost money.
In short, we are not stupid or evil, we want the same things you do. What we argue about is the best public policy to acheive them. So let's despense with the insults and name-calling on both sides and get down to a more cogent discussion of how to acheive what we all want.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 10:04 AMBecause of Gregoire, Sims and their respective cronies, we don't live in a democracy.
But perhaps not everyone wants to live in a democracy... just us moderate democrats, independents and republicans.
Posted by: saxa on March 9, 2005 10:31 AMPut me in the category of moderates. But last time I looked, this was still a democracy. One disputed voting outcome does not change that fact. Look a Florida in 2000.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 10:38 AMRossi won Washington - I'll accept democracy when Rossi in put in the gov's mansion.
Posted by: saxa on March 9, 2005 10:43 AMThanks to both of you for resisting the temptation to call me names.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 10:46 AMBut of course not resolved for you because the resolution wasn't in your favor...
Maybe others would refrain from name-calling if you were able to synthesize facts.
Posted by: saxa on March 9, 2005 10:51 AM
Yeah we do have that in common. Oh wait, that hand recount of Gregoire's cost the state $800,000.
I guess we DON'T have that in common.
Posted by: DIVA on March 9, 2005 10:52 AMAs for Lowery, I hadn't heard that particular quote, but like many politicians of all stripes, he had a knack for saying some incredibly stupid things at times. Please don't project that into the idea that dem's want all income to go direct to the government. We don't. We want the best bang for our government buck, just like you.
Which brings me to Iraq. Things might turn out well there, but so far it's been a bust. The cost to the US treasury is careening toward $300 billion with no end in sight. The number of dead is in the tens of thousands and wounded in the scores of thousands. If there is a silver lining, it's very hard for me to see. It certainly hasn't been the war President Bush described.
I do appreciate your thoughtful reply. Thank you.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 12:54 PMThere ya go again with the insults and name-calling. I keep telling you that may be music to your supporters' ears, but it's no way to win new friends and influence your opponents.
Thanks for the lesson on forms of government, but I doubt your distinction has much relevance here.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 01:00 PMRecall my reference to Fla 2000 was in response to Saxa's post which broadly implied that we no longer live in a democracy because we have a disputed election.
Fla 2000 was very close. It was hotly contested with a number of problems uncovered. It was litigated all the way to the US Supreme Ct, who ruled on it and effectively ended the dispute. Al Gore conceded and life went on.
That's very similar to what's going on here in Washington right now, though the process is not yet complete.
Is that a left wing point of view? I suppose so since I'm a left winger. Is it inaccurate? You tell me.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 01:19 PMSimilar but with a different set of circumstances exists here with respect to WA Gov. race. I don't need to lay out everything, but a difference was that Bush was never behind in FL 2000, while CG was behind after the first 2 counts and the rest of the story is in process.
Posted by: KS on March 9, 2005 01:30 PMIf the allies had confronted Hitler in 1933 when he first broke the armistice, 55 million people would not have been killed in WW2. There may have been some killed in 1933, but the numbers wouldn't match the number caused by appeasement and doing nothing. Admin policy since 1998 was regime change, Bush had the foresight to keep to the policy and stop appeasing Saddam.
Elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, small ones in Saudi Arabia, ready for ones in Egypt, Syria getting kicked out of Lebanon. Open your eyes and you might see it. Even Daniel Schorr had to admit it!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4518515
Posted by: Jonathan on March 9, 2005 01:43 PMIn 1986 as part of the general amnesty for illegal aliens, Reagan also got through measures providing for sanctions against employers for hiring aliens. As part of that bill, employers had to determine the citizenship of their employees and report that citizenship to the Feds. Employers who did not fulfill that obligation faced sanctions. As I stated earlier, I remember both supplying such documentation as an employee and requiring such documentation as an employer from the late 1980's to the early 1990's.
At some point in the 1990's, all that seemed to end. We stopped demanding that documentation of employees and I don't even know if we sent anything off to the Feds. Why did this end? I am not certain--there is probably more than enough responsibility for this to share amongst both of the parties.
However, my point was less that the R's are wonderful on immigration and the D's are awful. The truth of the matter is both parties are awful--neither wants to risk loss of the spanish-speaking vote. Business is not forcing this. Even the nutcake leftists who could care less about illegals aren't driving this. Simple power politics pandering to a voting block (central and s. american ethnic groups).
While I wish someone would break ranks on this issue, it seems unlikely. And the flood of illegals--primarily from south of the border it seems--will continue unabated.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 9, 2005 02:34 PMAs usual, you GOP right wing fanatics have all of the fact wrong. Gore was called the winner by early network Florida exit polling and only erroneous and biased reporting by Fox News that night showed Bush the winner in Fla. Moreover, several independent news recount systems did indeed show Gore with far more than the 537 phony vote differential that Bush claimed.
Further, a totally biased Fla. Secy of State prohibited recounting and threw out thousands of Gore votes, particularly from Duval County (Jacksonville) as "illegal felon" votes when none of those people had ever been in jail.
Finally, the Palm Beach County "butterfly ballot," which mistakenly gave tens of thousands of votes to Nazi-lover Pat Buchanan from Jewish retirees (many of whom were Holocaust survivors) made the entire Fla. election in 2000 a total joke, with Gore a certain and absolute real winner.
And then the fact that nationally Gore had more than half a million more votes than Bush -- but we won't go there.
So in reality, a totally biased Secy of State, coupled with a disputed 1-vote USSC margin decision overturned a real victory by Al Gore in 2000. Yet Democrats, for the good of the country, conceded.
Here in WA, you have a totally unbiased Secy of State overseeing a relatively trouble-free but incredibly close election with the rightful winner coming out on top.
And all you silly anti-American Republicans can do is act like the bunch of sore losers and power-hungry zealots that you actually are, rather than accept the true will of the people.
Posted by: Nelson on March 9, 2005 03:06 PMBias FOX news - interesting. FOX got it right and all the MSM called it for Gore (before all FL polls closed). Since when is getting it right biased? And since when does the press officially call the winner. That actually is done by someone in the government, so who cares that the MSM called the election (wrong mind you).
FL law said that every count had to be complete by a certain date. After that date counts are not legitimate. Right wrong or indifferent, that is the law the SoS was following. I know following the law probably seems an odd thing to do here in WA.
The ballots were designed and approved by the dems. If they confused their intellectual base, well what can I say.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 9, 2005 03:18 PMThe law contained too many loopholes and was never enforced by INS or DOJ. Few if any prosecutions were ever commenced under that law under Reagan, Bush, or Clinton. Bush is kissing up to the hispanics now, but the law never had any teeth in it.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2005 03:20 PMI didn't know that and the enforcement information was not readily available with Google. But it is certainly believable and would explain why compliance dropped off over the years.
Which $&*()&# me off even more, since not only was a promising program never really implemented but it wasted a heck of a lot of my time and money complying with it for no reason.
But we are in violent agreement here. No one is currently enforcing sanctions against hiring (or educated, or providing health care) to illegal aliens. Instead, we see multiple programs which seem to reward illegals (driver licenses, in state tuition, bilingual education, protection from local police checking immigration status, etc.).
So will it take a third party candidacy based on illegal immigration issues to wake up the two major political parties?
Posted by: iconoclast on March 9, 2005 03:37 PMForgive the delay in my response. I occasionlly have to break away and do some real work to support myself. Alas, I don't have one of those cushy "guvment" jobs they keep referring to.
My numbers of dead and injured come from the International Red Cross. I deliberately posted them as vague, because I feel they are just that. But I find them far more credible than your quote of 1500. That would be less than the US military fatalities for Iraq alone. Perhaps we can agree the numbers are far more than either of us is happy about.
That being said, add in the $300 billion plus and it seems like an awful price to pay just to hold a few elections. Again, recall my premis of seeking the most cost effective government possible.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 04:12 PMSorry, but I couldn't quite follow your point.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 04:46 PMThe same analogy here, do we force Saddam to keep to the cease fire (note, not end of war) agreement, or do we continuously allow him to snub the world and kill his people?
What is the right price of freedom? Do you not believe that free countries don't start wars? Doesn't that make us safer? If we have democratic countries everywhere we would be safer.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 9, 2005 05:22 PMMost would consider the USA to be a "free country", yet we started this war.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 06:11 PMAnd as iconoclast put very clearly, the Iraq war started in 1991, when Saddam walked into his neighbor. There was only a ceasefire agreed upon, not an end to the war - of course until now.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 9, 2005 07:10 PMMany of the facts presented here are the facts ultimately verifiable by the Miami Herald, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Herald, and others. My sister is like you Nelson, still can't get over the FL 2000 vote. Now that they locked down the illegal votes in 2004, notice that GWB won by what... 300K+ votes? Hmmm...
As others said, they called FL for Gore, way before the Panhandle closed their polls as they are in the Central Time Zone. Why, who knows? But the demographics of that call had many conservative people leave the the lines in the western states.
Why? Stupidity and I admit it. The reason for some of the 500,000 more Gore votes has been documented by this. My complaint to anyone who leaves their right to vote and goes home because of a projected outcome is STUPID. Notice in 2004 this didn't happen. 3 million more Bush votes.
Now lets ask about the butterfly ballot. Remember it was Theresa LaPore, the DEMOCRATIC party commissioner of Palm Beach County who created the ballot. So waaaaah, the demoncats created a confusing document and waaaah the Palm Beach County voters didn't read their voters pamphlet to determine how to decipher it, makes my vote a problem for me. Not my problem Nelson.
Now the hanging chads, reminds me of the mystery ballots of King County. Lets see how we can add more votes for Gore. It was sure amazing from the family memebers who supported Gore in FL, who were amazed that the Gore numbers increased much faster than that of Bush. Everyone, does this sound familiar in each of the KC recounts? Thank you again Stefan, you da man!!!
You cry about the FL law about certification. Well, if you can remember the FL Supreme Court not the US Supreme Court said the law was the law. The issue you are going waaaah about is the final outcome. Remember the US Supremes said that there could not be a partial recount of 4 Gore leading counties but the whole Florida enchilada. Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough if I remember were the Gore counties. Nelson why did Gore go to court to disenfranchise the military vote? He thought it would go 70-30 Bush. Well it went 58-42 Bush. So the NYT wrote an article castigating Gore for absolute stupidity about his David Boies moment. Remember the Microsoft lawyer in the 1995 case? Yeah the same one. The military remembered this moment in 2004 against Kerry. It was around 70-30. So thank Gore for helping Kerry to lose.
Now about the WA election. It was so called "trouble-free" until the manual recount. Can't you understand the cound every vote call of Berendt percolated these issues to the forefront? But Nooooooooooo you can't see that. The zeal for the Gregoire victory has identified all of these real problems Nelson.
So I ask one last question? Is it true that Gregoire attended a segregated sorority? If it is true, where is the scandal for you liberals getting on someone about that? Segregation, we can't have that. Has she renounced it? If she did I guess I missed it and that's good for her. If she didn't... Oh yeah, another Demoncat foible that the liberal press overlooks?
Keep going Stefan. You analysis is wonderful, even if I have to do some of the calculations to clarify it for myself.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 9, 2005 07:42 PMYou forget two things about the lead up to WW2. First if you go back and look at the chancellor of Germany before Hitler came into power. Was it Hindenberg? Anyway Hitler and the Nazi party lost the '32 election. Meanwhile Churchill is screaming to Europe and Britain that Hitler is bad news. No one listens.
But what the Nazis did was to go into the smaller local elections and then in '33 the Nazis got Hilter in as vice Chancellor Then in '34 historians have speculated that the quick death of the chancellor five months after the election was that they poisoned him. Now Hitler is chancellor two years after badly losing in the 32 election. Now he gets elevated to Fuhrer.
Second - The British - Chamberlain makes a deal with Hitler to give him Chechoslovakia to keep him from attacking Britian. The French thought the Maginot Line would stop the tanks from getting through their eastern frontier. Well they didn't upkeep the defense line and it rusted. Well we know that worked. So Churchill takes the government over after London is attacked and we never hear about the appeaser Chamberlain again. THe rest is history.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 9, 2005 07:59 PMFYI
If you read STEFAN'S NEW COLUMN in the Stranger you will see that he says he was in favor of a revote for Florida in 2000.
Surprised me.
Posted by: chew2 on March 10, 2005 01:08 PMFYI
If you read STEFAN'S NEW COLUMN in the Stranger you will see that he says he was in favor of a revote for Florida in 2000. Too many irregularities.
Surprised me.
Posted by: chew2 on March 10, 2005 01:08 PMThe other part that was left out was that the war started over Poland. What did Roosevelt, against Churchill's advice, do at the end of the war - give Poland to the Soviets. Ironic isn't it?
Posted by: Jonathan on March 10, 2005 03:01 PMI live in Sno. Cty. so me getting a Stranger is harder than you. But you and those on your side did not answer my FL questions or comments in my above posting. My sister, bless her heart stopped talking about Florida when I referred her to the newspaper web sites that performed a full explanation that even poor Nelson can refute. She still seethes over it. But then again Nelson continues to spout the same garbage in other threads. Maybe chew2, you can contact Nelson and tell him to get his facts straight.
Jonathan:
I forgot to discuss Poland but I didn't think about it because that happened after the Chech handout. But you are so right. The blitzkrieg of Poland in September '39 was around the same time that Mousolini started his stuff in Africa and the Japanese doing their Asian (China, Korea, Phillipines and Malaysian) activities. Good catch.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 11, 2005 06:33 AM