In this primary election cycle we have one - and only one - real choice to make:

Choice A: Do we continue to debate which one of several two-stepping, flip-flopping, high-taxing, freedom-undermining candidates will mug us in a way that most coincides with our own ideological preference  - or

Choice B: Do we vote for the one candidate who always does what he says, whose story hasn't changed in over twenty years, and who wants to change the law so we can all simply keep the money we earn?

That should not be a hard choice to make.

Very instructive here was Fred Thompson's comment at the ABCNews/Facebook Debate. he said: "Americans are entitled to the fruit of their labor ... unless the government thinks it can spend the money better."

Oops! Trying to sound like a true constitutionalist, there, weren't you, Fred? Too bad that you ended up saying something your handlers never would approve of - and that those who may vote for you may one day remind you of, should you be elected. It's okay, Fred. You can take those two feet of yours out of your mouth, now.

Seriously, is staying the course in Iraq worth abandoning all pretense at limited constitutional government? Is fiscal responsibility, is honesty in government, is freedom itself negotiable?

Is it worth electing a candidate who will allow twenty million illegal aliens to stay after a slap on the wrist and a monetary fine?

Is it worth electing a known cross-dresser who heads a US law firm hired by the Spanish company that will manage the NAFTA superhighway?

Is it worth tolerating a known flip-flopper who will say and do anything just to look good or to gain an office?

We conservatives always like to pride ourselves on taking responsibility for our actions. Can we deny responsibility for middle east violence and hatred toward the US after having deposed Mossadegh and installed an Anglo-American puppet? After having kept military bases in Saudi Arabia for decades against the will of the Arabs - and propping up  a ruthless and otherwise anti-American, anti-Christian regime?

How would we react if China kept military bases in the US to protect their access to oil?

Are we so committed to a known, obvious mistake that we refuse to correct it?

Certainly, the US did not "invite" the 9-11 attacks. That goes without saying. But we must recognize that meddling in other country's affairs is (a) not authorized by the Constitution, and (b) gets other countries mad at us, and (c)  amounts to nothing more than the US pushing its weight around.

The answer to intervention gone wrong isn't more intervention.

The answer to undermining the Constitution isn't to kill it off entirely.

If we are Republicans who value truth, freedom, property, faith, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we are confronted with these choices - what is there left to think about?