We Need to Be Careful for What We Wish
By Frank Salvato

As the primary cycle rolls on, those who understand the danger of a Hillary Clinton administration are gleefully watching her tumble in the polls. Barack Obama’s campaign “performances” have played to the basest emotions of America’s left-leaning community and, ironically, doing so with a recycled version of Bill Clinton’s 1992 messages of “change” and “hope.” But as much as Ms. Clinton’s demise may fill Conservative hearts with a sense of satisfaction we really should be careful for what we wish.

Of course, there are many reasons to oppose a Clinton II administration, especially in these internationally conflicted times.

Hillary Clinton – by her insistence that she served as co-president – was complicit in treating the issue of Islamofascist terrorism as a “law enforcement issue” rather than an act of war. This is, of course, absurd for the simple fact that our enemy literally declared war on us in 1996 and then again in 1998. One can just imagine bin Laden and al Zawahiri sitting in their Tora Bora cave, scratching their heads at the non-action of the Clintons saying to one another, “Do you think that email went through? You know, these things get lost in cyber space every now and again. Go ahead, Ayman, send it again and this time use some exclamation points so they know we mean it.”

Clinton has declared her preference for removing troops from the field of battle in Iraq even as she refuses to recognize that those battlefields and the battlefields of Afghanistan are but theaters in a much larger global conflict. As the leaders of Islamofascist jihad are expanding their reach into Europe, Africa, Indonesia, South America and further into North America, Hillary Clinton (as well as her opponent, Barack Obama) don’t even comprehend the seriousness of the threat or its advanced stage.

Then we have Hillary Clinton’s penchant (remember, she was co-president, that’s how she amassed all the experience she keeps talking about) for allowing foreign governments to access sensitive technology specific to our military’s capabilities. Pay no attention to the fact that Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., donated approximately $595,500 to Democrat campaign causes from 1995 to 1996 while positioning with the Clinton administration to push through the export of dual-use imaging technology to China.

And pay even less attention to the fact that Clinton fundraiser Johnny Chung, a Taiwanese-born American citizen who contributed some $400,000 to various Democratic causes as he visited the Clinton White House over 50 times, had business relations with Chinese General Ji Shengde, chief of China’s military intelligence.

Then, please, pay the least attention to recent headlines about the arrests of Chinese clandestine agents working on American soil to infiltrate the Pentagon and to acquire technology unique to the US Space Shuttle Program.

Those are only two of myriad reasons Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be let anywhere near even a picture of the Oval Office. We can add to that the fact that over the eight years of Clinton I (remember, she was co-president) virtually every department was politicized including:

▪ The Justice Department, who refuses to investigate campaign finance malfeasance perpetrated by the Clintons and that now employs a middle management cadre of Clinton appointees who continually run interference for them.

▪ A kinder-gentler-neutered Central Intelligence Agency that gets squeamish at the thought of “harsh” interrogation techniques for those who routinely decapitate people to send ideological messages.

▪ An inept Federal Bureau of investigation who lunches with operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood under the guise of “outreach.”

▪ And a viciously rogue State Department that defies the direction and policies of the Executive Branch for which they work.

The list can go on and on and on.

But the larger point to be made is that in spite of how bad Hillary Clinton would be for our country should the earth crack in two and she becomes President of the United States, she would be easier to beat in the general Election than freshman Senator Barack Obama.

The simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama, in reality, is a substance-less empty suit of a politician; he has no paper trail, he has no record. We don’t really know who he is or what he stands for but for his campaign promises. This modern day P.T. Barnum, purveyor of starry-eyed rhetoric, has no track record of achievement or failure.

Obama destroyed his records from when he was an Illinois State Senator, a curious move for someone aspiring to higher office. He could have donated them to his alma mater but he didn’t.

During his extremely short tenure on the national stage he established himself as one of the most Liberal members of the Senate while accumulating scant legislation in his name. In fact, the only piece of legislation Obama has sponsored is the Global Poverty Act of 2007, which would effectively result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States, a true example of just how much a one-world Progressive Liberal he is.

If that weren’t enough, Obama’s campaign responded to recent reports of volunteer campaign workers adorning their office with a Cuban flag emblazoned with a portrait of Marxist revolutionary and mass-murderer Ché Guevara as “inappropriate,” but refused to request that it be removed. It should be noted that Guevara is responsible for tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths in the immediate days after the Cuban revolution.

Meanwhile, his campaign is raking in the donations via the Internet. The curious thing to note here is that Obama's website allows contributors to choose an originating address in one of 227 possible countries, including Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Yemen. Hhmm...

Of course, the mainstream media is not covering either the Marxist statement adorning the walls of Obama’s “volunteer” campaign office, his probable gathering of campaign funds from foreign entities or his one-world Progressive-Left sole piece of legislation. This leaves Barack Obama as a political and ideological enigma.

In a head-to-head poll constructed by RealClearPolitics.com a McCain v. Clinton match-up results in a McCain victory by a 46.7% to 45.3% margin. When voters know who the players are they tend to make a more educated decision as to who would do the least damage to our country. But in a McCain v. Obama match-up McCain loses by a margin of 47.7% to 43.7%. This can be attributed to the fact that Obama is literally preying on the “hopes” of the fickle American electorate.

It is because there is no notable evidence, no established political or governmental track record that it is hard to compare and contrast, to project just how much damage Obama could do to our country should he be elected POTUS.

As Obama and his campaign operatives continue to gather financial support from foreign entities, make the US vulnerable to an unconstitutional tax mandate and turn a blind-eye to the Marxists within his ranks, we should all be very careful not to destroy Hillary Clinton’s chances too soon. We want to see her in the General Election. We need to be careful what we wish for.