Conservatives are fed up with the lies told to them by the Republican Party establishment every election cycle about support for fiscal responsibility, respect for individual liberties and their belief in our Constitution and justly remind the GOP that actions speak louder than words. Year after year the list of actions by the GOP that break these promises continues to grow and grow until eventually as the Republicans stay in power they look more and more like Democrats. As a whole and a party that is.

Conservatives kick and scream every now and then things get better for a time. Like right now for example. Conservatives are raising a fuss and the Republicans, out of power, are bending over backwards to lock arms and form a wall of defiance against the left. But it was, if I might be so bold to remind you, just a few short years ago that we had Republicans spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than we as Americans had to spend, most often on unconstitutional welfare programs consuming large swaths of our government bureaucracy, and rushing to the podium to sign on to plans such as TARP along with their liberal Democrat brethren.

Where were they when people were screaming then? Well, in my mind they simply did not care enough to hold to those promises they have made so many times before because they were in power. Now however they see the anger at out of control government spending, which they themselves have partaken in numerous times, as their ticket back to power and are once again putting on a mask. Personally, I see it as simply as that.

Ask any man or woman who has been in an abusive relationship with a spouse and they will tell you what will happen next. They will tell you that the promise to be better will get made once more and things will most likely get better for a time. But in the long run the abuse will return.

There are a lot of enablers out there among the conservative movement which is a plurality if not a majority of Americans. Chief perhaps among them is Sean Hannity who I hear day after day decrying conservatives who have had enough of the lies. One of his common refrains is that there is, most certainly, a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties and that this is reason enough to continue to support the Republicans. Some people, it seems, are making the claim that there is not such a difference.

Well, to that I say the later are fools. Of course there is a dime’s worth of difference between the liberal Democrats planted far on the left and the not quite so liberal Republicans tethered only not so far to the left by a strong conservative anchor farther to the right. Make no mistake, if the rope we are using to hold the Republican Party in place were to break the GOP would rush over and embrace the Democrat Comrades. Just look at their train of abuses against liberty and the Constitution! Campaign finance reform anyone?

A dime’s worth of difference is not good. If a typical Democrat is right 5% of the time, and I think that I am generous by saying that, and the average Republican is right only a dime’s worth more at 15%, it is a bad thing. There was a dime’s worth of difference between Mussolini and Hitler too but no one in their right mind would suggest that Fascism was better than Nazism on a grand scale unless they were mentally insane.

Sean Hannity, and many other enablers, encourages conservatives to stick it out. He likes to often use one particular speech by Ronald Reagan as his cane to beat conservatives into submission. Reagan once opined that at the time of his own ascendancy within the Republican Party the country needed a revitalized Republican Party and not a third party for conservatives. Like an Air America shill, Hannity repeats this defense of conservatives maintaining the Republican Party as their home because in the past Reagan did the same.

But there are some points to ponder on this shallow use of Reagan. First, Reagan was not God. He was a man and men make mistakes. Simply quoting Reagan’s belief about conservatives remaining true the Republican Party as a reason does not make it a good reason. We are, after all, talking about a President that believed the lies of the Democratic Party who controlled Congress about spending cuts that they would make and never did. We are talking about a man who inconsistently used his authority as the Chief Executive of the United States to prevent unconstitutional acts and uphold the Constitution no matter what the Congress passed into law. We are, after all, talking about a President that accepted a sweeping amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who had broken United States law and violated our sovereignty.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that Reagan was a horrid President. But let these acts show that even he was not right all the time and that simply quoting him without a strong and ardent look at the facts wins no argument on the matter of conservative loyalty to the Republican Party. In fact, and I am sure this fact has not escaped Mr. Hannity and others, at one time the Republican Party was a third party itself.

Yes, if conservatives abandon the Republican Party for other candidates and other parties the risk of splitting the vote from the “right” is there as moderate, liberal, RINOs continue to support the likes of John McCain. Such an act would indeed give a liberal Democrat a far greater chance of victory in a three way race. But I again ask the same question I have asked a thousand times before. Why should conservatives be forced to compromise with left leaning Republicans? When will the left leaning Republicans be forced to compromise with us? Sometimes you have to go through Hell to get to Heaven.

I know that I am not alone in being tired of the abuse we conservatives have suffered at the hands of the Republican Party. And I see the same scenario playing out just as it has before; abuse of us by the GOP, anger by conservatives at the GOP, a threat to the GOP’s power as conservatives start making rumblings about finding another home, a mea culpa and a plea on bended knee from the GOP for us to stay and a promise that they will be better, a sizable portion of abused conservatives getting a sentimental tear in their eye as they rush back to embrace the GOP for yet another shot at making things work. Will the vicious cycle be broken this time? I have little hope that it will. Note that I said, “little hope,” and not no hope. I foresee much pain and suffering for not just conservatives but also this country the cycle is not broken.

I am not saying that it is time to cast aside the Republican Party as of this day. But I am not saying that the Republican Party should not be cast aside either. I am suggesting that while we may continue to dwell in the same house that our relationship should not be consummated and that conservatives should allow the Republican Party to stay as long as they agree to sleep in a different bed and in a different room.

This should be their last chance to prove their worth. And when they are given a majority either in this election or the next should they fail they to act as they have promised they should not be given another chance. If they prove to be not faithful to their word by the sum of their deeds and act appropriately from this day forth then they should be indeed cast out into the cold and the rain to catch pneumonia and die. After a few decades of proving their worth then we can talk about moving their bed into the same room. After about a century of loyalty to this Republic and her ideals then we can talk about letting them sleep in the same bed once again.

So if you need me I will be sleeping in the barn out back with my shotgun. I will be seeing other people when I so desire and the occasion calls for it just as all conservatives should when the GOP puts forth a nominee that is severely lacking conservative bona fides. And if the GOP comes to try and abuse me again, well just be warned that I will plant a load of double ought buck shot between their eyes and kill them where they stand.

I know it if politically incorrect to describe these third rails of American politics as socialized medicine by you do not come to me for political correctness now do you? You come to me for the truth. Both of these plans take money from one American’s pocket and then gives it to another. The “other” need not earn it; it is just given by government fiat.

The horror stories about how these programs operate are usually hidden deep on the pages of the local news paper if they are reported on at all. But every now and again we get the truth. Every now and again we get the facts about how these programs decline care and leave those on them desperate for solutions.

We also every now and again get the fiscal truth about these programs. Right now 121 Walgreens stores are set to stop accepting new Medicaid patients. Why? Well, quite simply, the reimbursement rates are not in line with market prices of drugs and services and Walgreens is tired of loosing money.

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won’t take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.
The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.
In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a “continued reduction in reimbursement” under the state’s Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

The response from Doug Porter, the director of Medicaid for the state says not to worry though!

Doug Porter, the state’s director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because “we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need” for the state’s 1 million Medicaid clients.

This is sort of like the people who told those working in the World Trade Center on September 11th to return to their offices and that everything was ok. Boy, that worked out well for those that listened right? Because while Mr. Porter is towing the bureaucratic line to stave off a panic if people knew the truth, the truth is still there to be seen. The truth is that a collapse is imminent.

See, Bartell Drugs also stopped accepting new patients with Medicaid cards last month in 57 of their Washington State stores. See a pattern here? Oh and Ritzville Drug Company, according to the story, also has announced that it will stop taking Medicaid patients too. And as the story further mentions Fred Meyer and Safeway are currently continuing to service their existing Medicaid customers and accepting new ones but, “both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is too low for pharmacies to make a profit.”

This all comes about because the reimbursement to pharmacies under the plan is about 84% of their wholesale costs. You can do the math pretty easily I think. It is damn hard to make a profit when you are getting 16% less than it costs you to buy something!

So while Mr. Porter is busy telling people not to worry and that there are plenty of places Medicaid patients can go, the number of those places they can go are getting fewer and fewer. It is political reality catching up with the state of Washington is what it is.

We hear about how a new socialized medicine plan out of Washington DC will help increase choice? I would love to know how when all we hear about is how people are pulling out of the existing socialized medicine plans as fast as they can. What are these people promoting yet another plan that is more of the same smoking? Because whatever it is the rest of us are going to need some of it too to help ease the pain that their plans always bring.

For all the talk by liberals about how great Obamacare will be, it is doomed to the same fate as Medicaid because the laws of economics cannot be suspended indefinitely. Eventually they cause socialism to collapse and the rubble to burn.

Donna Kelly, an assistant New Jersey attorney general representing the state, argued that it would be misleading for voters to be asked to sign a recall petition then later told they’re not legally part of the process.

“The U.S. Constitution is clear that a senator’s term is six years and is not subject to recall,” Elias said in a statement. “We are pleased the court stayed this opinion until the appeals process is completed.”

The court granted the right to petition and told the State that if successful it must be accepted but stayed its own order pending a certain appeal in an attempt to play both sides of the fence in an act of judicial cowardice. The AP muddied the waters with this statement:

The court set aside the larger question of whether New Jersey voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker. New Jersey is among 18 states that allow recalls of statewide elected officials, but there is no right to recall congressmen and senators under the U.S. Constitution.

If you have ever actually read the Constitution, this leap of stupidity should be sounding alarm bells.

Amendment XVII states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

It also goes on however to state that there may be vacancies and is silent on how those vacancies may occur:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution gives the States an explicit right to decide how Senators are elected:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Again, it is silent on the concept of a “recall” for an existing Senator.

We do however know that Senators can indeed be removed from office by an act of federal impeachment:

Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Of course, should a Senator be impeached then by the State of New Jersey’s own argument that a Senator’s term is six years would be rendered moot. And what if a sitting Senator wants to retire?  Well, again by New Jersey’s own argument he or she would not be allowed to because they were elected to serve six years.  Obviously there are exceptions to a Senator’s term being six years based on this. But there is no power for the State to remove their own Senator right? Well, not so fast. Actually, once again there is something that those trying to defend an unqualified Senator have ignored. That is the Tenth Amendment which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I am looking in the Constitution to see if it says anywhere that the individual States delegate to the United States the power to force the States to keep an incompetent Senator in his seat for an entire six years. Cannot find it. Therefor since the power is not delegated the right to remove a Senator by recall is, in fact, reserved it would appear.

Damn that limited government thingy!

The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

Mr Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.

Mr Obama is personally telephoning congressmen who are still on the fence this week, in between several personal appearances devoted toward swinging public opinion.

Gee, if I were a Democrat interested in getting reelected this is a great opportunity to help increase the chances of just such a reality by keeping the toxic President Obama as far away from my campaign as possible with a simple no vote on a bad and wildly unconstitutional bill. Sure his appearance might rake in the dough for the campaign but if you are going to lose anyway what difference does it make? So you can be a loser with millions left in your account? Hardly a consolation prize worthy of note.

Of course Preisdent Obama thinks that this is a real threat with teeth.  That’s because he believes his own hype.

There is no depth of idiocy that a liberal in search of liberty infringing legislation will not dive to. And boy are we getting some whoppers of some tales from the left about how without health insurance Americans are dropping like flies. But thanks to people like Senator Durbin we can look at how silly the numbers they throw around which they hope support their desires for a more socialized medical system than we already have really are.

According to demographics data from 2007 total deaths in the United States for 2007 were 8.26 per 1,000 persons or 2.478 million deaths per year (based on a population of 300 million). Per day that is 6,789 deaths per day in the United States.

Pondering the fact that one either does have health insurance or one does not have health insurance then this means that about 6,729 people die each day who do in fact have health insurance if Mr. Durbin’s numbers are to be believed.

We hear that there are somewhere between 15 and 30 million Americans without health insurance in the country. That means that (based on a population of 300 million) there are between 285 and 270 million Americans with health insurance.

Results of some simple math are as follows:

Rate of death for Americans without health insurance is between 0.000467% and 0.000233% per day.

Rate of death for Americans with health insurance is between 0.002358% and 0.002489% per day.

Ok, now look at those numbers closely because people with health insurance are 5 to 10.67 times more likely to die than those without insurance.

See how meaningless it is to throw out numbers like this Mr. Durbin? All you crackpot liberals who think you can shock us by making any claim that crosses your pathetic little minds to try and support an unconstitutional government program better take note too? If anything we see that simply having insurance is not an indicator that you will survive an illness now is it. So what is the point about telling us how many people die each day without having health insurance? You know, other than to obfuscate and avoid the meat of the argument which is that what you want is simply not allowed under the contract we the people have with our federal government.

Now here is something else to ponder. How many of those 70 people each day that die and who didn’t have health insurance are like Rose Mankos who found herself squashed by a train after determining that her gym bag was more important than her own safety? How many cases of DRT (or Dead Right There) are included in these numbers where no amount of care provided could put Humpty Dumpty back together again?

And here is another good question to ponder. Liberals tell us that health care is a right so inalienable that it must be granted by the federal government. But if this claim is true then why does Medicare and Medicaid (two prime examples of government run socialized medicine administered by these same liberals) deny so many claims every day to people just trying to get their so called “right?” Hmm? Oh, I know, don’t confuse the left with the facts. That would be rude and probably burst their pathetic little bubble.

While I’m still looking for the language in the Constitution that gives the federal government to meddle with the Internet, the bureaucrats are moving full steam ahead to achieve, “goal of 100M bps service to 100 million homes.” The excuse is that it will help the United States better compete in the global marketplace.

What it will actually do is give the government a bunch of companies dependent on them and cost the tax payers billions. Still, I’m sitting here looking for the Constitutional verbiage that gives this power to the government in Washington D.C.

In this day and age of enourmous deficits is this really what we should be doing?

Congress should spend an additional $9 billion over three years to speed broadband deployment, but the USF money should be enough to bring broadband to 99 percent of the U.S. population by 2020, said the FCC’s Levin. Combined with $7.2 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for broadband deployment, the redirected USF program will pay for broadband deployment across the U.S., he said.

We’re not talking peanuts here. And not to sound like a broken record, but I still cannot find the clause of the Constitution that gives the feds this authority. No, what we have is just plain and simple another corporate welfare program to provide something that the marketplace does not dictate is wanted.  Because believe me you if people were clamouring for wireless broadband access in rural areas that don’t have it it would be there. What this is really about is companies that don’t want to front the full cost of what the service would entail to get set up looking for a handout from Uncle Sam to do something that they cannot afford to do and that their customers cannot afford.

We have to start cutting back this government somewhere people. How about this boondoggle? No, seriously! If not here then where?  Why should another taxpayer’s pocket be picked so that another can benefit?  It is simply not right on any level.

To pass the the bill Nancy Pelosi and the liberals need 216 votes.

It is almost over however. No, not the budget crisis and our bloated national debt; those are still here and looming larger than ever. What is almost over is this series about ways to solve the problem. Now, before we get on to discussing the last unthinkable option, number five, I do want to address a particular concern that so many of you have emailed me with. Some of you are asking me why I have not proposed simply selling off the trillions of dollars in land our federal government owns as a way of dealing with our federal deficits. Especially since by some accounts there would be more than enough to make us whole. Well, yes, that is true. But it is only a temporary fix to the problem you see because let’s say we were to sell off about $12 trillion in land tomorrow and make the deficit go away. What then? Well, the very next day we would be right back in the red racking up more debt spending. In reality this is no different than unthinkable option number one where even though we staved off the inevitable, we would just keep on doing what we were doing.

Personally I think that it would be a great idea for the federal government to divest itself of land that has been acquired by time and again violating the sovereignty of many States within our Union in the course of procuring it. But unless we cut spending then nothing changes. At the rate our current President and Congress are spending we would be right back here again in ten to twelve years and that time around there would be no land to sell as a fix.

This series of articles is about living within our means and ways to do so. And with that explained we are on to the final unthinkable option.

I hope that you have enjoyed the ride of welfare and transfer payments system which this country has been on for decades. Because under unthinkable option number five it all ends. Kick and scream all you like about how such a proposal is anti-poor or how you as a senior citizen have “earned” those monthly checks because you paid someone else’s way previously. All you are going to do become is horse.

Last week I showed you how much needed to be cut from every program of the federal budget just to pay down the debt in a reasonable time frame. The week before I showed you that in order to even have a shot at paying down the debt every single item other than the big welfare spending line items would have to be let go. This week though we are going to take a novel approach and adhere to the Constitution. That means if it is not in the Constitution as a power of our government then it is gone.

Weep if you are getting a government check. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

While in previous weeks it has been a struggle to get the budget under control this week, by simply eliminating unconstitutional spending, it is very easy. Not painless, but easy. Oh, and once again, as much as I hate saying it, even though we cut this spending taxes must remain the same. Again, I realize that cutting taxes would actually raise revenue and even though I have said that many times in this series people still scold me for this part of the plan. Listen, again I am going to tell you we are not going to deal with an argument over tax rates here. We are just dealing with numbers we know (those from 2008 and previously noted) and we are not going to get in a bind by guessing at what new revenues could be if we had a more sound tax policy.

And spare me all your cries about these programs not being unconstitutional because of this court ruling or that court ruling. Courts, in case you are unaware, cannot rewrite our federal Constitution. Oh, they try and often the people just go along with it but they still have not in fact changed the actually meaning of the document.

This week is when the guillotine comes down. No scalpel. No axe. We are bringing out the mother of all blades.

Now, we are still working with 2008 numbers here. And as much as you may not like it, they are the same as has they have been in previous weeks where we have $2.569 trillion in revenues and $3.094 trillion in spending and a $525 billion in debt each year with $12 trillion in total debt. Don’t worry, this will be quick.

Lop off the $608 billion spent on Social Security. Lop off the $386 billion spent on Medicare. Lop off the $209 billion in Medicaid and SCHIP.

Do this alone and we are running, with current taxes kept as they are, a surplus of just under $678 billion each year and can have the debt paid down in 18 years.

Let’s cut some more heads off. Come here you $324 billion in Unemployment payments, Welfare, and other “Mandatory Spending.” That leaves us with a trillion dollar surplus and a payoff period on the debt of just 12 years.

Yep, where as under unthinkable option number three when we had to spend iteration after iteration knocking off this program and that program to scrimp and save enough while we protected these precious little programs above to sooth the angry masses partaking of them, just four quick chops here have us well on the road to fiscal responsibility.

But we can go further. If we cut other unconstitutional discretionary spending the numbers get better. Ditch the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Labor and the “Off-budget” spending our yearly surplus balloons to $1.236 trillion allowing us to pay off the debt two years quicker. Yes, in just ten years we would have the deficit retired! And reasonably by also cutting waste in even the Constitutional programs such as the Department of Defense we can save even more.

All it would take is for us to abide by the Constitution.

Would there be misery? Sure. But as I have said before, we have misery now where the productivity of the producer class is confiscated to provide hammocks to the rest of America in which they sleep waiting eagerly each month for their checks signed boldly by Uncle Sam. And personally I think it is high time that the producers be cut a break in this country.

So there you have it my friends. The five unthinkable options are laid out before you. Which will you chose? You can even come up with your own if you think you have a better option. But the fact is that even if you do so misery will stem forth from all of them be they the ones I have set out on the table or any further ones that you concoct. Do you make our children suffer? Dose the current day’s working middleclass suffer? Do the dependant classes suffer? You just have to hold your nose and pick your poison.

Laus Deo.

When asked their thoughts on the national debt and whether or not the $12 trillion that is owed was a problem, 95% of those who voted agree that “Yes, it is a serious problem.”

Zogby shows that the results are the same when he asked a similar question:

Ninety-five percent of U.S. adults say it is important to reduce the debt

Of course the answers that respondents came up with proves that many have little understanding for what the real problems are with our federal budget. But that is a topic for later on this weekend I think.

At 2:54 PM on Wednesday Ms. Conyers got her 37 month sentence handed down although she does not have to report until July 1st reports wxyz.com. She has 10 days to appeal and, if you ask me, failing to do that she should be in jail immediately.

The soap opera that is this case was not without its moments as Ms. Conyers tried to withdraw her guilty plea now saying that she did not do the deed she was accused of. Only a dunce, I suppose, would think it reasonable to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. Come on Monica, just suck it up. Its not like you are going to be doing hard time or anything, even though you should be. Get your pretty orange jumper and go to your cell and enjoy the creature comforts you shouldn’t be afforded.

Corrupt politicians are right up there with child molesters and rapists if you ask me.

You know, if we would stop setting up the system so that it rewards corruption then we wouldn’t have this sort of monkey business going on in our governments.