Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Obama's War on the US Military

On January 3rd, President Obama released his vision for military expenditures going forward. It is a plan that calls for reducing troop strength by tens of thousands because, Mr. Obama contends, ”we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership.” An integral part of the new strategy? Abandoning the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. ”Yes, our military will be leaner, said the president, “but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, cut right through the rhetoric. ”This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” he contended. “The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.”

The scope of the divestment is daunting. The additional $500 billion in new spending cuts come on top of the $480 billion this president cut out of the military budget his first three years in office. Neither of these cuts reflect the possibility that an additional $500 billion in possible cuts will kick in next January, under “sequestration.” And since the 2012 budget request already calls for the reduction of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the next four years, it is likely those numbers will increase as well.

Mr. Obama contends, "we've succeeded in defending our nation..."  Has he completely lost all sense of reality??!!  WTH!

We need our military to be strong and capable. Without a strong military defense we are left defenseless. Or is that his whole plan to cripple this nation even further.  Because so far he has done a bang up job. 

Islam is a great threat to the West and now Iran has nuclear weapons.  Iraq is not at peace and Afghanistan is left to fend for themselves and will be back under the severe control of the Taliban and all the equipment that the United States left behind will be utilized by the Taliban. What a tragedy.

The United States is or was a great world power but now we are becoming a mediocre nation due to the incompetency of a president who tends to bow down and kiss the asses of other world leaders. (Sorry for the bad language, there folks.)

I firmly believe the United States cannot afford to make any cuts to our military and he is also taking jobs and security away. How is that supposed to boost the economy?  More people on the unemployment line?  Is anyone else angry about this turn of events?

Vote for Obama and you are voting for abortion and partial-birth abortion (death to millions of babies.) If you vote for Obama you are supporting a socialist, if you vote for Obama you are in favor of government control and possibly run by a dictator, if you vote for Obama you support a man who enjoys stomping on the Constitution of the United States of America, if you vote for Obama you are in favor of cutting military defenses and leaving this nation without protection against domestic and foreign enemies.

And the domestic enemies are already among us.

Think about it.


cube said...

He makes me want to puke. BTW I'm being polite ;-)

Silverfiddle said...

I wonder how many of these cuts will come from cutting pentagon bureaucracy?

Jersey McJones said...

Congress didn't have to do this. They chose this route. Just the same, IT'S ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME! This ridiculous military empire HAS TO COME TO AN END!!! It's breaking us!!!

You little fraidy cats on the right have to grow up and realize there is no great existential threat to the USA. You are being played for frightful fools!


D Charles QC said...

I have no comment about numbers or capability - I am sure there are experts aplenty on both sides of the fence who can come up with solid arguments.

That "Islam is a great threat to the West" is for me total hogwash, histera and reeks of home-grown agendas. Some need a boogey man to make themselves look important, to rally supporters via nationalism and faith-based causes, or because it helps a political cause like the Settler Movement taking land in Palestine.

Most certainly I am not an American nor do I live there and I thus do go for the hate-Obama rhetoric. I disagree with his economics, I think his foreign policy is better than most of his predecessors and he does not bow down and kiss arses of foreign countries - that is just mor hype.

A last comment, he is not a Socialist, that is wrong in every count - talk to someone like us who is plagued with real hard-ball socialists.

Leticia said...

Cube, you and me both.

Silver, I truly wonder.

Jersey, yeah, you keep thinking that if it makes you feel all fuzzy inside.

Charles, he knows nothing about foreign policy. And I am honestly surprised how much liberals hate a strong military.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia, we are obviously going to do the agree to disagree element.

Personally I think Obamas only success has been his foreign policy and he has not only given back respect to the US that was lost over the previous eight years but has also opened doors to increased trade opportunities when that is so critical in such an global economic crisis. Additionally, he has also proven to be a good salesman for America and from a foreign perspective we see no difference in his willingness to play hard-ball in trade - such as forcing Australia yet again to lose sales of better quality rice because the US threatens to "not forget" and risk Asian imports being taxed higher. I understand that, would not any country do it?

Give me an example of a failure of foreign policy please so that I may understand from what angle you have reached this view.

Leticia said...

Charles, I know you hate the copy and paste bit, but I figured this is worth your reading.

Since Qaddafi was overthrown, large quantities of advanced weapons from his arsenal — allegedly including stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction — have gone missing. Significant quantities of Libyan shoulder-to-air missiles have made their way to Gaza since Qaddafi's overthrow.
In Syria, while the administration insists that dictator Bashar Assad's days in power are numbered, it is doing essentially nothing to support the Syrian opposition. Fearing the instability that would ensue if a civil war were to break out in Iran's Arab protectorate, the US has chosen to effectively sit on its hands and so cancel any leverage it ought to wield over the shape of things to come.
As to Iran, Obama's policies have brought about a situation where the regime in Teheran does not fear a US military strike on its nuclear installations. Obama's open opposition to the prospect of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations has similarly convinced the regime that it can proceed without fear in its nuclear project.
Iran's threat this week to close the Straits of Hormuz in the event that the US imposes an embargo on Iranian oil exports is being widely characterized by the US media as a sign of desperation on the part of the regime. But it is hard to see how this characterization aligns with reality. It is far more appropriate to view Iran's easy threats as a sign of contempt for Obama and for US power projection under his leadership.
If Iran's ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons are thwarted, it will be despite Obama, not because of him.
Then there is the so-called peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Due to Obama's unbridled hostility towards Israel, there is no chance whatsoever that Israel and the PLO will reach a peace deal for the foreseeable future. Instead, Fatah and Hamas have agreed to unify their forces. The only thing standing in the way of a Hamas takeover of the PLO is the US Congress's threat to cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority. For his part, Obama has gone out of his way to discredit the Congressional threat by serving as an indefatigable lobbyist for maintaining US financial support for the PA.
Of course, the Middle East is not the only region where the deleterious consequences of Obama's foreign policy are being felt. From Europe, to Africa, to Asia, to Latin America, Obama's determination to embrace US adversaries like Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez has weakened pro-US forces and strengthened US foes

Z said...

Leticia, there are military experts saying this is a disaster.
I'm ALL for protecting our soldiers and drones are fine, except they're not; problems are happening all over as we all know.

I'm with SF when he talks about Pentagon bureaucracy but when Panetta thinks we're cutting too much, you KNOW we're in trouble. OH, I just Googled....Panetta must have got the memo because now he's off the "we're cutting way too much to stay safe" bandwagon I agreed with (and so did so many experts, but the WH apparently chose to ignore the senate hearings), and onto the "we're perfectly safe and foreign countries need to understand that."


Gad, I wish I, too, could live in the liberal cocoon of "there are no terrorists, America's more respected now, appeasement is a good thing and Arabs treat weakness and acquiescence with respect"!! WHat a blissful way to see life.

I'd rather be feared and respected than only respected any day....that's what's kept us all safe for so many years, but alas...

D Charles QC said...


Libya - was it America's war? Did America or others put soldiers on the ground - were they welcome to and what reaction would there have been from many in the international community? Did you want to have another prolonged war? Was it Obama's or the US's fault that the weapons became free - it was in fact a NATO led operation, not American.
Syria - has America declared war or are they putting troops on the ground in Syria? Is it the same situation and is the conditions the same as say in Libya or Iraq? What can they do without making it a general regional war and are you aware that Syria has a large modern cache of anti-Aircraft weaponry, would you then blame "Obama" for the downing of US jets?
Did Iran fear the US ever? I doubt it. Diplomats world wide - except for hawks and haters like Bolton - would argue that the carrot-stick method is the only way to work a place like Iran. The more a relationship you build the more "the people" want freedom. Sanctions are now very much biting and the Straits issue is a good test. A strike by Israel will set back the Middle East peace process about ten years and rekindle the long-held belief that Israel does what it like because "big brother America" will back it up in the end.
I see no "hostility" towards Israel from Obama, unbridled not a chance. If anything the world in general has waited for the day that "unquestioned support" for a country that flaunts international regulations, considers itself both unique and yet a member of the international community. It is about time that it stops playing everyone the full by wanting peace and yet giving tacit support to Settlers which is as bad as terrorism minus actual bombs. I believe Israel has every right to defend itself and be a nation but then it has to act it. Obama and his Administration have taken the bold step of not giving "special, unquestioning and blind support" and considers it to be an important but yet not the only partner in the region. I agree with that view. It begs to wonder how there can be so many in America can give what almost equates a second allegance to a nation that has also stole from America the bomb. Israel would drop America at a minutes notice if it had to.
I would also disagree that there has been any significant change when it comes to dealing with various world leaders. The Russian relation has had its ups and downs in every administration and it continues to. The reality of global economies and dynamics is almost impossible to put simple wide-sweeping generalisations. AS for Hugo Chavez, you have to play the fool to a fool - it is a smart ploy.

America is in fact stronger because it has lost some of the tarnished "big brother" and "bully" image that it had in the past. That America will walk over other countries to get what it wants and play the "big economy" to win no matter what. Constructive engagement works much better. Gone are the days of "American Exceptionalism" that rubs so mouch the wrong way with anyone not American and every once in a while even Obama plays that card.

Always On Watch said...

Without a strong military, America will be every other nation's patsy. **sigh**

Moreover, singing kumbaya is always doomed from the start when it comes to the importance on military strength. **sigh again**

christian soldier said...

let's bring our BEST home from Korea-Japan-Germany (keep the hospital there-and continue to pay the Germans for the land it is one) and et al------
than we will save tax $$$-and
the Germans-et al--- will have to fund their own military -
then - build more great ships and planes- and really intimidate the muslim terrorists-and manage our own border as well-
My take---

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Jersey said: "This ridiculous military empire HAS TO COME TO AN END!!! It's breaking us!!!"

There is no US military empire. Absolutely none. Sure, lies like this were printed in Soviet-era "Pravda" for decades (or come out of the official mouthpieces of Red China), but that doesn't mean they are true.

And the only reason the threats are small is because we have a strong military to deter them.

dmarks said...

DCQC said: "think his foreign policy is better than most of his predecessors"

I disagree. While I don't think Obama's foreign policy is as horrible as others thing, I prefer Bush's policy of readily and accurately identifying problems and dealing with them over Obama's.

And while you are thinking of Bush, DCQC, think of the continent you live on (if I recall correctly). Africa. Bush did more for that continent than just about every American president, including his successor. click here

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, and the rest of you hawks, have you ever actually been around this country of ours. Do you have any idea how big we are? Have you looked at a map? Notice our secure geographic position?

We are lucky to be Americans, but not just because we fought wars, but because we were blessed with a large, naturally secure nation. We do not need a massive, constant, standing army.

Our founders understood this, and so imposed only a navy on our congress. Armies were to be raised for war alone, not as an imperial presence throughout the world.

And at what point will you "patriotic "Americans"" realize you are supporting colonial rule over that world? You are supporting the same impositions on the rest of the world that our country fought against in our war of "independence."

Oh, and exactly what does national "independence" mean to you? How are we "independent?" It seems to me we have extended ourselves all over a turbulent world and are now less "independent" than we were 236 years ago, for Washington's sake.

You conservatives just confound me these days. Have you been around America lately?


Debbie said...

Did Obama ever have a real sense of reality? I don't think so, he has proven that over and over. From the beginning of his life there has been no reality, not as far as "normal, average, American" history. How he ever got elected is beyond me.

Right Truth

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Jersey said: "And at what point will you "patriotic "Americans"" realize you are supporting colonial rule over that world?"

I am strongly anti-colonial. You won't come up with anything on the US being a colonial power at all other than the tiniest of territories, such as perhaps Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and a few other tiny specs. Which really don't make any sort of case at all.

"You are supporting the same impositions on the rest of the world that our country fought against in our war of "independence."

There is no evidence of this.


DCQC: what is your big beef, exactly with Bolton? Did he say some bad things about Gibraltar or something?

D Charles QC said...


Gibraltar is part of Europe (Southern Iberia sharing borders with Spain). Though 12 miles away, Africa seems hundreds more.

As for Africa, Bush followed his predecessors and in fact the way we the Brits used to handle things - enforcing western-style liberal democracy on a continent that neither wanted or perhaps does not need it. It created divisions, borders and corruption which many historians will argue probably was the worst thing to hit Africa.

Bolton was a part of it. He rode rough-shot over the State Department, basically made threats and ignored the diplomatic processors. He was and remains an exponent of American Exceptionalism as well as pushes for conflict - he is a trigger happy old-world type that has no place today. Many friends in your State Department broke out bottles and breathed a collective sigh of relief the day that Bush was forced to pull him out.

dmarks said...

DCQC: "Gibraltar is part of Europe..."

I should have known. My bad. I can be pendantic on geography, and I got this one wrong for sure.

"As for Africa, Bush followed his predecessors ... enforcing western-style liberal democracy"

Hmm. Did you read the article I linked to?

As for Bolton, do you have any specifics/

D Charles QC said...


actually I was going to mention that I have read it already, a friend sent the link to me.

Personally I think Bush will be treated better over time and I did respect many aspects. His VP, original SecDef and Bolton is another matter.

As for Bolton, his reputation (and to a degree confirmed by both Colin Powell and Condalissa Rice) for ignoring policies and the chain of command is only one aspect. He was responsible for trying the "Waxman Ploy" (the fabricated yellow cake saga) and that is a very good example of Cold-War style of politics - planting evidence to go to war. My friends who work at the US State Department said (and I have two groups of separate friends) both confirmed that Bolton considered himself during his State Department time as The Undersecretary (though he was not) and when UN Ambassador as the Secretary of State (obviously not). They also independantly said that there was spontaneous applaus and even a few champaign bottles cracked open the day he was not approved (and forced to resign). By that time even Bush had enough and Bolton hinted that himself by claiming that he rejected Bush changing agreed policy.

I have no doubt that Bolton is a dedicated and very direct person whom when given a task will do so at full ramming speed. That is fine if there is a need, the direction is correct and your not in his way. The rest of the world was in his way.

dmarks said...

DCQC: Actually, the yellow cake account checks out when you realize that is the most likely export from Nigeria that the Iraqi 'trade mission'' would be ocncerned with. But seeking to build nuclear weapons was just one of Saddam's many cease fire violations. Promoting/hosting terrorism and attacking peacekeeping patrols were also violations.

"and that is a very good example of Cold-War style of politics - planting evidence to go to war."

Didn't happen. Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime engaged in many and numerous and aggressive violations of the cease fire. In the post 9/11 world, it made a lot less sense to let him keep attacking us.

"... both confirmed that Bolton considered himself during his State Department time as The Undersecretary (though he was not).."

So all you have so far as that Bolton claimed to have a higher station than he actually had?

dmarks said...

JMJ said: "You conservatives just confound me these days. Have you been around America lately?"

Your sea to shining sea point has nothing do with the actual issue of keeping the aggressors (including foreign powers that have openly announced that they want to destroy us) at bay.

Perhaps you are repeating your alarming point that the US is too large to be conquored completely: there's enough space so that the aggressors could invade and kill off everyone from California to Kansas before they run out of steam.

Sorry, I am not willing to sacrifice one inch of our sovereign soil to aggression from our enemies. It is not acceptible, period.

dmarks said...

DCQC said: "A strike by Israel will set back the Middle East peace process about ten years and rekindle the long-held belief that Israel does what it like because "big brother America" will back it up in the end."

Ten years back to what? To a point in which the Palestinian government still embraced a goal of exterminating the Jews? Well, they still do.

As for the ignorant and mistaken "long held belief", the assertion that deluded fools would become even more deluded is no reason not to do the right thing.

D Charles QC said...


The yellow cake claim was proven a forgery. Regardless of the real and existing threats that Saddam obviously planned, it would be a gross injustice to base an action on falsified information. The ends justifying the means is also not an excuse. Are we to stoop to their level (or Bolton's level in this case). I read the case extensively becuase the implications was paramount.

I can go on about what I understand about Bolton, such as how Bolton hijacked and basically killed any chance for a debate within the US Congress and State Department regarding the 1991 Geneva Conference on Biological Weapons. That Conference was to endorse the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention which as yet the US had not but was considering ratifying. Bolton argued that the US was a "special case" and should not be subject to international scrutiny (though he pushed for the rest of the world to be). In the end the US did not sign, the anger was practicaly global down to only four or five nations obstaining from making a comment. It set back confidence in the US for years, even to a degree now.

A last point on Bolton because this could go on and on and I do not have the time. A quote from the man himself which pretty much tells it all - something which rubs the wrong way with the entire world, except perhaps some in your own country.

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States".

Leticia said...

Z, absolutely right. I just wish some people would realize the importance.

I'll get back and respond to everyone's comments, have to help a friend out.

D Charles QC said...


though the subject of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades - it would be very wrong to put the argument as simple, black and white or in any superficial sense.

Though I am sure you and others here will disagree, there are some underlining currents within the Arab/Muslim world that gets thrown to the side.

For a start - the conflict is about nation building and all the rhetoric, angst, etc, in the end is not about religion, the Koran or about race. It is about having a nation and like it or not, that one was thrust upon the area and with not much conslultation. Having said that, that is the past and an working, strong and quite unified Israel exiists, has proven to be a leader in fields and should be shining example to all of us. Equally so, Palestine has a right to exist (if they can get their act together which for my part they have not).

The second point is that the anti-Jewish rhetoric is not global amongst Muslims but through shrewed politics, Pan-Arab nationalism and a lot of money - anti-Israel is something that was institutionalised.

Now having said that, that last bit is losing its grip and it is harder and harder for the Palestinians to push thier case with the rest of the Muslim world. Why is that?

Because the rest of the Arab and Muslim world is tired of the violence, the defeatest, victim status and more importantly the demands from Palestinians. They are a people with the proverbial chip on their shoulder, perhaps (and ironically) that some would have argued in the 60s and 70s that Israelis had. They have pushed their welcome way to far and are not really that welcome any more. Jordanians and Lebanese have suffered because of having them on their soil. Also, we have the issue of Hamas (as I am sure you know Hezbollah are not Palestinians and are Shia) whom have divided the nation politically and the most hard-line.

The reality is that Israel should keep its head down. Any attack on Iran or major offensive could simply rekindle Palestinian and anti-Semiticism that believe it or not is actually in decline. It was this, or perhaps another blog, that pointed out the item a day or so about the health club in Dubai that used a holocaust picture as a selling point for weight loss. The complaints were thick and fast but what was ignored was that the owner lost his busuiness, he was fined and charged under local bigotry laws. I am watching from my study window the lights of Tangier (Morocco - in Africa) and they have a proud Jewish history and a continuing tourism from Israel. There are four Jewish festivals in that country based on local saints - the government shows it on national television. Sure not all is perfect, far from it, but the negatives tend to get all the coverage and the slow majority of forward movement is almost ignored.

Back in the Middle East and with Iran, there is no simple solution but there are many ways to set things back. Ahmadinejad does much of his rhetoric for domestic consumption - that should not be forgotten, and also anti-Iranian rhetoric for local consumption over in your country. Ahamdinejad never actually said once he is building a bomb (though we can all be confident that they are trying) but his comments about Israel have been badly translated and incorrectly reported. Go to an item on politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/ which not only shows one of Michelles many fluffs but actually goes into detail on the subject.

dmarks said...

DC said: "The yellow cake claim was proven a forgery"

Actually, it is known that Saddam had a trade mission to Niger, in a situation where the most likely commodity to discuss was yellow cake. It has not been proven, but it is likely. About as likely as a representative to Chevron to Saudi Arabia to seek imports. Even without documentation, there's good reaso to believe that this would probably be for oil.

"I can go on about what I understand about Bolton...regarding the 1991 Geneva Conference on Biological Weapons."

Well, now you are getting somewhere. That's a lot more of a smoking gun than the previous couple of things.

dmarks said...

DC: You make some pretty good points. Only this one I call into question:

"Ahmadinejad does much of his rhetoric for domestic consumption - that should not be forgotten, and also anti-Iranian rhetoric for local consumption over in your country."

There's a HUGE difference here. Ahm*'s "rhetoric" is about destroying the United States and wiping out 5.5 million Jewish Israelis, using nuclear weapons if necessary.

The US anti-Iranian is about what? Destroying the nuclear weapons facilities. Nothing more. There's nothing about destroying Iran, nothing about killing millions of Iranians.

As for Ahm*'s statements, if anything they get soft-pedaled and forgotten. They are really rather outrageous. Such as these statements in which he demands the elimination of the Israelis, and the Americans along the way. That's well over 300 million people.

There's simply no comparison in the US.

D Charles QC said...


the yellow cake was an identified forgery - a plant and it is simple as that. What was or is possible in Niger makes no difference, are we going to presume and assume our way into wars and sanctions?

A proven forgery is not a smoking gun, in itself it is evidence.

Just for your info, Rocco Martino an Italian ex intelligence agent provided the French government papers that "implied" that Iraq was interesting in "trading with Niger". That, in the end, was the only value taken. Martino was asked to provide more information and that he would be paid well for his trouble - he then became a businessman providing what his client wanted - even though they were fasle.

D Charles QC said...


I have made no assertion that the remarks for domestic consumption are at the same levels, the differences are as obvious as can be.

Please read my item and link, though, about "wiping israel off the face of the earth" - there is doubt that this was actually said.

Make no mistake, the man is as ugly and dangerous as they can get, but I also believe that he is a shrewed politician more than anything else. He exists because he could garner support from the Iranian Revolutnary Guard and move some of their loyalty from the Supreme Leader. He must keep the hard-line ultra conservative rural Iranians happy or his days are numbered, that is the voiting block that he acutally wins legitimately - with the rest, of course, not so correctly.

dmarks said...

I consider remarks to be remarks, regardless of "domestic consumption"

Leticia said...

Well, I was going to comment further but Dmarks, you did an excellent job all on your own. So, thank you! lol!!

Liberalmann said...

59% of our total budget goes to the military. 59%. Get real.

dmarks said...

Liberal: That's fine, actually. It could even be more. Defense of our nation is one of the actual legitimate Constitutional expenditures of the Federal government.

Not fish atlases. Not free health care for rich people. Not millionaire retirement pensions for Congress. None of that.

Democrats Abroad UK said...

Well done Obama,destroy the military industrial complex , show the scumbag Zionists the disrespect they deserve,
Obamacare, tax the rich ,you've got my vote.

Leticia said...

LiberalM, 59% isn't enough, and if you truly cared for this nation and your loved ones, you would want them to spend more. It's about the future of this nation and protecting it.

Dmarks, I agree my friend. I don't believe the taxpayers should be forced to pay for retired congressmen's pensions. They need to do what the rest of us do and earn it.

Democrat, I wonder how you would feel if it was happening in your nation? Or do you not like having a military protection? Get real.

MK said...

This is perfectly in line with obama's belief that America is not an exceptional nation and should not really be playing the role of global policeman.

Mind you, this is what the libertarians want too. What they don't understand is that if America exits the stage, someone will take your place. And that's looking more like folks who have a dislike of true freedom and liberty.

Ironic isn't it, liberals who go on about freedom and liberty leave the light of liberty dimmed in their wake.

dmarks said...

Democrats UK said: "Well done Obama,destroy the military industrial complex , show the scumbag Zionists the disrespect they deserve,"

I see that the British Neo-Nazi movement has a voice in this blog.

dmarks said...

And no, Leticia. "Democrats Abroad UK" with his antisemitic rhetoric is no Democrat. The Dems actually have low tolerance for the language of those who want the Israelis called "scumbags" and shown disrespect because they are Zionists. Perhaps he left the US because he realized that the Democrats here are not the National Socialist party he desires.

Leticia said...

dmarks, noted. Thank you.

dmarks said...

Yeah, basically, antisemitism is not mainstream in the Democrats, and is generally discouraged.

There is an actual "Democrats Abroad UK" organization, but it appears to mainstream US democras. Not the raving antisemite that posted here using the organization's name as his.

Leticia said...

dmarks, I honestly had no idea about this group. Thank you for sharing with me.