1. Why is it that when Mike Schmuckabee supporters call talk radio or post on blogs, they feel it necessary to preface their reasons for support by claiming to be the most conservative person in the history of conservatism?  Could it have to do with the fact that he only holds one or two conservative ideals?  Sorry folks, but this does not a conservative make. 

I find it funny that we do not hear Fred supporters or Duncan Hunter (full disclosure - me) supporters or even Mitt Romney supporters offering a disclaimer.

Joe Lieberman is fantastic on the global war on terror and supports President Bush's strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He is definitely not a conservative.

2. If Mike Schmuckabee is such a great choice for conservatives, then why is the liberal alien media nation (sorry Dr. Bennett) supporting him with such fervor?  Could this be because he is the ultimate caricature of a Republican candidate?  Is he the easy kill that we have heard about?  I think so.

3. Where is Duncan Hunter?  With so many talk radio hosts quasi-endorsing him (Ingraham, Wilkow, Dr. Bennett, etc...) why has he failed to catch fire with conservatives.  The only candidate receiving a higher rating from the American Conservative Union was Tom Tancredo and he's out of the race.  His voting record is down-the-line conservative and backs up everything he says.  He has performed consistently well in debates and has given unique, relevant, and to-the-point answers.  He is a war hero and understands foreign policy as well or better than any of the other candidates.  He is the only one who seems to understand the threat that China and Russia pose to this country not just Iran.  He is a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, pro school choice, in favor of reducing government spending, in favor of strengthening the military, wrote the border fence bill, and is a co-sponsor of the FairTax bill.  Sure, some can nitpick at the FairTax, but no one is even touching this with Huckabee so it is not really worth discussing here. 

Instead of supporting Hunter, it seems as though every one is trying to either fit their candidate into the Hunter mold.  With some - especially Schmuckabee and Giuliani it is a big stretch.

He has it all - social conservatism, economic conservatism/libertarianism, optimism, is a constitutionalist, and strong on national defense.

Mr. Hunter, please stand up and make some noise!

4. Why do Fred-heads have a problem with Romney looking "presidential"?  They call him "too perfect" and "plastic".  Is this because their candidate looks like melted plastic?

5. Why do Fred-heads forget that Senator Thompson tried like there was no tomorrow to get his name on the McCain-Feingold assault on the first amendment?  Fred is excellent on so many issues.  I cannot get my mind around this one.  It almost makes me think that some of this is a bit of an act...

6. Does Mitt Romney feel uncomfortable being conservative on some issues because he spent so much time in ultra-liberal Taxachusetts?  He has a phenomenal understanding of the history of this country, leadership, and economics.  He clearly understands that conservative principles work.  I am waiting for him to stop hinting around and fully embrace them. 

Tancredo's endorsement helped him with me.  Could he be hedging his bets and hoping for his name on a ticket with Romney?  I think so.

7. Ron Paul - the greatest snake oil salesman besides the slip-and-fall Silky Pony (or Breck Girl as Rush likes to call shim).  I get the popularity of Paul.  He is promising real change, but why should voters believe him?  He has done nothing to implement his ideas in his current position.  What makes you think he will start now?  Even if he does, how much effect can he have as president in bringing down a hundred years of liberal nonsense and correct the shortcomings of the New Deal and other hair-brained ideas?

He has introduced pork-barrel legislation and then once he is sure it will pass, has voted against it.  His blame America first rhetoric should be relegated to the Dim-a-rat party.  There is no place for this in the GOP.  He is a foreign policy moron.  Sorry Ron, but we are in the world whether you like it or not.  We have tried to keep our heads buried in the sand before (i.e. pre WWI).  If Wilson had had a set, maybe our allies in England and France would not have lost so many millions of men and women as he allowed Germany to gain power and momentum.  We can pretend that if we dig a moat and draw up the bridge that no one will bother us, but this is not the way things work.

8. Why is John McCain a Republican?  He is clearly a RINO.  He wants to close Gitmo and bring terrorists into our prison system so they can recruit for a completely new breed of Islamo-weenies.  He is an open borders guy and shamnesty guy.  He did not support the Bush tax cuts and maintains that he still would not now even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were nothing but beneficial to our economy.  McCain-Feingold anyone?  He buys into the church of Gore-bull warming.  Ok, he is tough on terrorists and a pro-life guy.  Hero - yes.  Conservative leader - no.

9. Rudy.  Nice job cleaning up NY.  Great job after 9/11.  Now, go write a book and leave us alone. 

10. I am keeping my fingers crossed for some combination of Hunter, Fred, and Mitt...the rest can go campaign for Hellary Rotten Klinton.

Well, the set-up was almost perfect.  The Open Borders Crowd (OBC) had their poster child, their plan, and their spotlight.  Elvira Arellano and her eight-year-old anchor-baby Saul were to become the OBC’s meal ticket to another “heart-wrenching” tale of imagined racism, hate, and just plain meanness of those who favor the rule of law.  What was the plan? 

First, let me give those of you, who are not familiar, a little background to the story.  The AP reports that the now 32-year-old Arellano came to this country - you guessed it - illegally in 1997.  She was deported to Mexico as soon as officials discovered her undocumented presence.  Apparently, not getting the message, Arellano once again violated our sovereignty and crossed the border illegally.  Shockingly, she was able to procure employment with the O’Hare International Airport washing planes!!!  (Aren’t these people supposed to be picking citrus, lettuce, and doing jobs that no American will do?)  Granted, the year was 2000, but it took 9/11/01 and another year for her to be arrested.  She was convicted of stealing a social security number to gain employment and likely establish a false identity to pilfer her version of the American Dream. 

Instead of turning herself over to the authorities, Elvira decided to seek sanctuary for herself and her anchor-baby at Aldalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago and has been there for just over a year.  In recent weeks, she had made it well known that she planned to leave the church for the first time in order to plead her case to congress in person.  She chose to drive to Los Angeles where she was arrested and deported through the San Diego border. 

Where is her anchor-baby Saul?  Well, that’s easy, staying in Chicago with the pastor of the church and his family.  Immigration officials gave her the option of taking her son with her.  She chose not to.  This is something that the AP and other misinformation…er…news sources have conveniently left out of their reporting.  Now the OBC is already dragging out the well-battered, long-deceased horse of immigration officials breaking up families.  These are the same immigration officials who could have but did not enter the church to arrest her. 

This woman has been given repeated chances to grasp the meaning of "rule-of-law", but still attempts to tug at the heartstrings of the most generous people on earth after practicing theft and deception.  So now, we have the OBC poised to launch of a protest of tens of people while the drive-by media will report that hundreds attended.  When is this protest scheduled?  Why on none other than September 12 of course!  Why not have it on the day after the day the nation remembers the worst attack ever seen on its soil (not counting the 40-year invasion of illegals aided by Ted Kennedy)? 

Where is the outrage that these illegal aliens constantly participate in identity theft and misrepresent themselves to employers?  Why won’t the OBC point a finger at the corporations they so love to demonize?  Why won’t the OBC anarchists speak out for the child whose mother left him here?  Yes, these questions are rhetorical, as we already know the answers. 

As we continue to let these people come here illegally no matter what the reason, we pay for it in three ways.  The first is the obvious monetary price.  Some studies have estimated that it costs anywhere between $30 and $40 billion, yes, that is billion, just to educate illegals in our public schools.  As they pay little or no payroll taxes in most cases that burden falls on each of us as taxpaying citizens.  This does not take into account the devastation illegal immigration has wrought on hospitals throughout the country.  We are paying for it in increased health care costs because of emergency room visits and birthing bills that remain unpaid.  Someone has to pick up the tab and you don’t seriously think that hospitals are eating these costs out of the goodness of their hearts do you?  This also does not take into account the wear and tear on our highways in the form of additional traffic or increased demand for products and services, which serves to raise prices as well.

The second is we are paying a huge cultural cost.  As the American culture is further diluted by “multi-culturalism” and obscured or discarded in many areas, our language, traditions, and other things that make us American are lost.  This can be witnessed on TV, radio, and in advertising of all kinds.

The third way is our security.  As we allow anyone come in through the southern border bringing drugs, smuggling people, and God knows what else, we are taking the risk that terrorists are entering this way as well.  We have all heard stories of Mexican military making incursions across the border escorting illegal aliens.  Who is to say that terrorists will or have not planning the same?

(Liberal Reader Warning: this commentary may contain satire! Read with caution!)

Let me preface the following commentary by saying that I am not a big fan of Don Imus. I am certainly no fan of verbally degrading anyone (unless of course they are deserving...) especially with language that can legitimately be construed as racist, sexist, etc...

I also am not a fan of self-aggrandizing, race-baiting, grandstanding, boobs like Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “False Allegations” Sharpton who encourage racial division under the premise of doing good on behalf of black folk. Just as one begins to let down one’s guard and starts to think that maybe, just maybe, racial tension is beginning to subside, an idiot with a microphone speaks out of the end of their digestive tract for which the mic was not meant and these two pop up like some racial jacks-in-the-box to stoke the fires. What ensues is entirely predictable and, by now, well-rehearsed. I will outline the steps to appeasing this Offended Rights Coalition later for easy reference just in case there is any confusion

There was at least one positive outcome of the Imus debacle. The American public had the privilege of hearing the enlightened scholar Snoop Dogg opine on Imus’ words of choice and their relativity to similar words frequently employed by Ganagsta Rap geniuses such as himself. Mr. Dogg eloquently explained to us knuckle-draggers that: (as quoted from MTV.com)

According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV), the middle class in the United States is being squeezed. The good liberal senator is now positioning himself to do the same to the U.S. military (not to mention the Iraqi people) by suggesting that he may move to halt the funding of the war in Iraq and have the troops stateside as early as next spring. This is the best bet for the Dems to assure defeat in Iraq - especially now with several news outlets, including the Associated Press, reporting that President Bush’s increased troop presence is having a positive effect - even at two-fifths of the target number. By many accounts, civilian casualties have been decreased by nearly half. While the situation remains far from utopian, it must raise some questions with regards to the timing of Reid’s showing of a modicum of intestinal fortitude in even threatening to pull the rug out from under the Bush-Petraeus troop increase while quantifiable indications of improvement can be seen. Does Reid worry that the Dems may end up with egg on their cowardly faces if we win? You bet.

It is my opinion that to abruptly cut funding for the war is an enormous gamble that the Dems have been wise to avoid thus far. While their extremely slim, fragile majority balances on the heads of the pro-victory Joe Lieberman and RINOs like Chuck Hagel, the Dems mistakenly credit their November success to the American people wishing to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. This is further encouraged by the incessant barking of moonbats like Cindy Sheehan and other America-haters such as Code Pink.

The Dems are partially correct in that the large majority of Americans were unhappy with the war, but this was because we were not winning. Americans do not, however, want to embrace defeat or see millions of Iraqis slaughtered Pol Pot-style in a vacuum created by American withdrawal.

Unless Senator Reid wishes to see the Cambodian killing fields replayed, he would be wise to allow the general confirmed by the Senate Armed Services committee to do the job he was hired to do. Reid among others complained constantly in the run up to the election in November that change was needed in Iraq. Even after having his wish granted in the form of Donald Rumsfeld’s “resignation” and the appointing of a new general to

head the mission, Reid cried that there was actually no change in strategy – that the war is a quagmire – and that the change the American people wanted was, in actuality what amounts to a defeat. The pros of giving the troop increase a chance to work and supporting the president far outweigh the cons of the cut-and-run policy of the left.

We all want to see our troops out of harms way. We all want our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and cousins back at the dinner table. In this most important of times, we would be wise to support them and encourage them to the victory we still believe is possible. God help us if we do not.

God bless our brave men and women keeping us safe and free.