they have win boys, they name one winfield scott after the soldier, they name the other hillary baker who doesn't seem very famous to us but hillary baker had been mayor of philadelphia, had been in the revolution, so locally prominent at the time. they have a third son, they name him simply john. john hancock. john hancock is with his brother winfield at gettiesberg. they have family members at the battle. hancock is an impressive young man. at 16 he gets an appointment to west point. his father doesn't think it's a very good idea. he's young, 16 is the youngest age you can get in. but he's also small. we think of big, strapping winfield scott hancock, big guy. you know how tall he was when he got out of west point? 5'5". one of his classmates wrote they considered hancock a pet. winfield scott hancock was their pet. he's about 6 feet by the time he leaves but he's small a fair amount of the time but he gets picked on. once it gets so bad one of his larger classmates has to step in to fight one of the bullies. that classmate is alexander hayes who ends up commanding a division at pic

twin boys in -- the name him winfield scott off of the soldier, it's been in the other one hillary baker, doesn't seem very famous to us but there from southeastern pa. he was the mayor of philadelphia. he was locally prominent at the time. six years later, they are a third son, they name him john hancock. with john hancock as with his brother winfield, they're in gettysburg. both armistead and hancock up family members at the battle. hancock is an impressive a young man growing up in -- pa, he gets an appointment with the west point. his father doesn't think it's a good idea. he is young, 16, is the youngest age you can get in. he is also small. he we think of big, strapping, wind field, john hancock. to know how tall he was when he -- five feet, five inches tall. one of his classmates wrote that they considered hancock a pet. winfield scott hancock was his pet. they had a growth spurt, he was six feet by the time he leaves. he was small a fair amount of the time. he gets picked on. boys being boys, he gets bullied. one time it gets so bad that one of his larger classmates has to step i

they have twin boys in 1824 named winfield scott after the soldier and the other named hillary baker which doesn't seem famous to us. it was locally prominent at the time in six years later they had a third john named john. john hancock. john hancock is with his brother wind field in gettysburg so armistead and hancock have family members at the battle. hancock grows up in norristown and gets an appointment to west point. his father doesn't think it's a very good idea to young. sixteens the youngest a.g. can get in but it's also small. we think the big strapping winfield hancock. i. do you know how tall he was when he got out of west point? 5 feet 5 inches tall. his classmates considered him a pet. these small a fair amount of time and it gets picked on. boys being boys he gets bullied and one time one of his larger classmates steps in to fight one of the bullies that classmate is alexander hayes who ends up commanding a division. hancock never forgets this years later in a flowery language than i consider he writes when i was a boy i had difficulty in alexander hayes was the first a

they name the other millry baker, which doesn't seem famous from us. he'd been in the revolution and locally prom nnlt at the time. six years later, they have a third son and name him simply john, john hancock and john hancock is with his brother, winfield at gettysburg. so, they both have family members at the battle. hancock's an impress chb young man. at 16, he gets an appointment to westpoint. his father doesn't think it's a good idea. 16 is a youngest age you can get in and he's small. you know how tall he was? 5'5" tall. one said they considered him their pet. he had a growth spurt and he's about six feet by the time he leaves. but byes being boys, he gets bullied and one of his largest class mates had to step in to fight one of the bullies and that class mate is alexander hayes, who beats up the bully. hancock never forgets this. years later, in the flowery language of the 19th century, wrote when i was a boy, alexander hayes was the first to volunteer to assist me and can extracting me from the trouble, became involved in aforementioned difficu

they name one winfield scott, they name the other hillary baker. they're from southeastern p.a., he had been mayor of philadelphia, he had been in the revolution. six years later, they have a third son. they name him simply john. john hancock. and john hancock is with his brother win field here at gettysburg. both have family members at the battle. now, hancock is an impressive young man growing up in norristown, p.a. at 16, he gets an appointment to west point. his father doesn't think it's a very good idea. he's young. 16 is the youngest age you can get in. but he's also small. we think of big strapping winfield scott hancock, big guy. you know how tall he was when he got to west point? 5'5". one of his classmates wrote they considered hancock a pet. winfield scott hancock was their pet. he hit a growth spurt, but he's small a fair amount of the time, and he gets picked on. boys being boys, he gets bullied. one of his larger classmates has to step in to fight one of the bullies. and that is alexander hayes. hayes beats up the bully. defends hanco

they have twin boys in 1824 and name one winfield scott after the soldier and the other hillary baker which doesn't seem famous to us but they are from southeastern p.a. he had been mayor of philadelphia and in the revolution so was locally prominent. six years later they have a third son and name him simply john. john hancock. and john hancock is with his brother winfield here at gettysburg. so both armistead and hancock have family members at the battle. hancock is an impressive young man growing up in norris town, p.a., at 16 gets an appointment to west point. his father doesn't think it is a good idea. he is young, 16 is the youngest you can get in but is also small. we think of big strapping winfield hancock. you know how tall he was? 5'5" tall when he got to west point. one of his classmates wrote they considered hancock a pet. winfield scott hancock was their pet. he had growth spurt and was about 6 feet when he leaves but small a fair amount of the time and gets picked on. boys being boys he gets bullied. one time it gets so bad one of his larger class mates has to step in to

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch 8th, 2 baths. alas, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine moved over georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nato is actually obliged by the nato russia found in act 1997 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding it. a pledge by nitro, or really or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nature has as well as i already. ready said has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision in it is in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it, on the federal republic

then americans, secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch eastwards bought a lance, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the clenches in rights. and that it will not admit ukraine, georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by nitro, normally, or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nato has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision in its forces in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but of quote, not one inch 8th to its box. alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the clenches in rights. and that it will not admit ukraine, georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is, the mom denied it. a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nato has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision it is in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of yugoslav

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato self and birth. he's on almost default every other sentence, and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you depend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of nato is a defensive alliance, and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look at what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us side. this is corporate welfare

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato sultan burge, his army, and almost default every other sentence. and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us side. this is corporate we

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch 8th, 2 baths. alas, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the clenches in rights. and that it will not admit ukraine, georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged to by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. so even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding it, a pledge by nitro, or really or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nato has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision in its forces in the baltic states in eastern europe. and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic o

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch eastwards, but alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine. georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by night. so normally all in writing is actually worthless because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision. it is in the baltic states in eastern europe, and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of yugosl

ah okay, baker, let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of natal sultan burg, he's almost default every other sentence and he begins every paragraph and ends. every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from a u. s. side. this is corporate welfare. thi

then american secretary of state james baker said to go, but joseph quote, not one inch 8th, 2 baths, alas, the naive, incompetent food that gorbachev was never demand. it'll be americans that they put back in writing. now turn into the criminal and demands they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about nato puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine moved over georgia into its ranks. and secondly, that later will withdraw its forces from the russian order. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato, russia found in act 19. 97 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision. it is in the baltic states in eastern europe, and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic

in the event american secretary of state james baker said to gorbachev, quote, not one inch eastward, but alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demanded of the americans that they put back in to rights in now turn into the kremlin demands. they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, a ride in the clenches in rights, and that it will not admit ukraine moved over ga, into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian border. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato. russia found an act 1997 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states. which brings me on to another point. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it, a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually worthless. because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato russia found in act by decision. it is in the baltic states in eastern europe, and secondly, nature violated its own found in treaty in 1991 when it on the federal republic of yugoslavia. specif

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato sultan burg, his army, and almost default every other sentence. and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look at what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the u. s. side. this is corporat

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato sultan burg, he's almost default every other sentence, and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well that, that's the whole premise of nato is a defensive alliance, and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us side. this is corporate welfare. this is

okay, baker. let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of nato. seldom birth. is it almost default every other sentence. and he begins every paragraph and ends, every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you depend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look at what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the u. s. side. this is corporate welf

assured me call, which off in 1990 would not happen in the event american secretary of state james baker sent to gorbachev. quote, not one inch easterwood, but alas, the naive, incompetent fool that gorbachev was never demanded of the americans that they put back in to rights in now turn into the kremlin demands. they all the demands for any self respecting country would make, namely, about knighthood puts into rights in the pledges in rights and that it will not admit ukraine moved over all ga into its ranks. and secondly, that nato will withdraw its forces from the russian border. now, nature is actually obliged by the nato. russia found an act of 1997 to not have its forces in eastern europe and also in the baltic states, which brings me on to another point pizza. even if nato was to put into writing what the kremlin is demanding of it. a pledge by night, so formally or in writing is actually off list. because firstly, nature has, as well as i already said, has violated the nato. russia found an act by decision it is in the baltic states in eastern europe and secondly, night violated