I will not support Hillary.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

– Why do I have problems with Hillary Clinton? Is it the same as BDS? No, unlike those haters of Bush I have good reason to take issue with the Senator. I hope those lefties that may come across this will realize that I have a standpoint because of my serious concerns about the national security issues at stake. If her reasoning for being president is due to the fact that she has had experience in the White House. Well that experience occurred, under her husbands oversight of blunder after blunder…

The Chinese Re-Connection

By INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, October 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT
National Security: Bill Clinton was the best president the People's Republic of China ever had. His wife may be even better. Beijing, hungry for more technology transfers, is betting on it.

… Command fundraisers are breaking out all over the Chinese community. It's plain that Sen. Clinton is China's candidate. It's time to ask why that is. What is the attraction? What does Beijing want? What has she promised? Is Hillary, as some suspect, a Manchurian candidate loyal to foreign and unseen donors rather than American voters? Can she be trusted with U.S. security?

… Bill Clinton called it a "strategic partnership." He argued that cozying up to — or as he called it, "engaging" — the communist Chinese was in America's best interest. But while Clinton was engaging them, an engagement that included inviting them into our defense labs and dismantling export controls, Beijing:

• Managed to steal secrets to every nuclear warhead deployed in the U.S. arsenal.
• Deployed for the first time an entire force of CSS-4 ICBMs that target the continental U.S., from L.A. to New York and everything in between.
• Declared the U.S. enemy No. 1 in its military writings.
• Bought Russian destroyers armed with missiles designed to kill U.S. carriers.
• Built up its missile batteries across the Taiwan Strait.
• Infiltrated the CIA and FBI with spies.

The Chinese espionage that occurred on Clinton's watch was unprecedented, and analysts still don't know how deep Chinese moles penetrated our security complex. The FBI warned President Clinton that the People's Republic of China was running a massive intelligence operation against the U.S. government, which included a plan to influence the 1996 election.

… As soon as Clinton took office, he implemented a policy of "denuclearization." That included ending nuclear testing, kicking open the defense labs to Chinese and other foreign scientists, and declassifying hundreds of documents related to our nuclear program.

Clinton also deregulated export of sensitive dual-use technology such as supercomputers and rocket guidance systems. And Beijing gleefully took advantage of the dovish changes, sharpening the reliability of the missiles it has aimed at the U.S. and Taiwan.

Clinton's open-door "engagement policy" amounted to rank appeasement of a communist state with hegemonic military ambitions. Will Hillary carry on the tradition? Will she, too, hold a high-tech fire sale for the Chinese? One thing is for sure, Beijing and its bagmen are betting on it — big time.

But If I pretend to move past history and to the present we have to deal with the fact that she would be having an advisor that stole classified national security documents. Sandy, Sandy…those darn documents just jump around like Mexican jumping beans. But he gave them back, oh no he didn’t.

Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers.

“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

But we cannot judge someone solely on that. The most important thing is her stances on the most important issues. For example, the issue of terrorism and the treatment of those that may provide actionable intel. I appreciate her view from a year ago.

What was not revealed was that Hillary not only disagreed with her husband, but with herself. In October 2006, she told the New York Daily News that the ticking-bomb scenario would be an acceptable exception to a general prohibition on torture.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans," she said at the time, "then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable."

But now she has “refined” her answer to: Sen. Clinton responded: "It cannot be American policy, period."

That answer in and of itself takes her out of consideration in my eyes. She is willing to pamper someone who could have information that could save millions! She used to talk about the “village to raise a child” well now she is willing to allow that entire village, children included, to be killed because she doesn’t want to be mean. And anyone that argues the “enemy will only follow our lead”, get out of here. We give them medical care, food, and they cut peoples heads off. It doesn’t matter what we do. The enemy will continue to be who they are, and we should do whatever is needed to protect the citizens of the United States of America. Care about us first, the rest of the world second.

And the cherry on top, Mondale’s endorsement: The Republican National Committee noted with glee that it was her second endorsement by a failed Democratic presidential nominee. The other endorsement came from George McGovern, the 1972 nominee who was soundly defeated in the general election by Richard Nixon.