Questions: Obama’s foreign policy

Published 7:00 am Friday, August 8, 2014

The foreign policy of the Obama administration is a disaster. Only his press spokesmen and MSNBC commentators have any confidence in it or defense of it. Situations in Eastern Europe, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the rest of the Mideast, Israel, the Mexican and Central American children, and the developing buildup of the Communist Chinese military, especially their Navy and space forces are a few examples of what is happening. Our enemies do not believe we will take any effective action against them and our allies are certain of it. Why is this happening? Some liberal journalists have stated lately that the President is inept, ineffective, or not engaged in his duties.

We don’t know much about the President other than his politically offered life story; all his school and university records have been sealed. His passport records have been sealed.  Most troubling and of interest and possibly concern now are questions about his fund raising discussed in an article by Mike Flynn, . Primary points are: 1. the Government Accountability Institute found that Obama’s donation page didn’t use industry-standard credit card security measures. It didn’t use the basic card verification value, the security number on the back of a card, most other campaigns use. 2.  This made it easier for foreigners to contribute illegally to the Obama campaign. 3. For 2008, persons named “Doodad Pro”, “Test Person” and “Good Will,” made donations to Obama. “Doodad Pro” made 791 donations totaling almost $20k if added together they are well over the non-reporting limit. It was a conscious decision to not use CVV security. Credit card companies charged the campaign higher fees because it didn’t use security. 4. They said over 1.8 million different people donated to the campaign. 98 percent of these were for $250 or less. Campaigns don’t have to report the names of contributors donating less than $200. With over 1.7 million people donating an average of $53, the majority of his donations weren’t reportable. 5. Many of these donations were under the $50 threshold and no record of the donor’s name was required to be kept. 6. Almost half the funds to the Obama campaign website were from foreign sources. 7. “”, which redirected to the Obama donation page, got almost 70 percent of its traffic from foreign sources.  8. The Obama campaign didn’t own “”. It is owned by an American businessman living in China with close ties to the Chinese government, Chicago native, Peter Roche, and he has been to the White House 19 times since Obama took office at the time of the report. Why didn’t the campaign get the domain name back from this guy? What is the advantage in an outsider owning “”? 

What effect would large amounts of foreign campaign money have on foreign policy decisions? When you look at  decisions being made by the President and the situations where no decisions are being made one may reasonably ask, why? How could the President’s actions and inaction possibly benefit our country? Who do these actions and inactions benefit? Are the liberal journalists correct and is his conduct because he is inept, ineffective, or not engaged in his duties? Are the President’s decisions based on his political philosophy and if so, what is it actually? What did the President mean when he was caught on an “open mike” telling the Russian President to tell Putin he could be more flexible, after the election?

Sign up for our daily email newsletter

Get the latest news sent to your inbox

By: Buddy McDonald