*******

Just as I thought that the primary reason a father who loves golf as much I do would have to boycott NBC Sports and it’s recently acquired Golf Channel is the inundation of frigging Viagra (and similar) commercials, the geniuses at NBC decided to use their considerable wisdom and virtue to edit the Pledge of Allegiance for the rest of us, for they consider us dupes.

This morning, before the final round of the United States Open – a Father’s Day tradition for golfers in this country and beyond, and arguably the most grueling test of golf in the world – NBC produced one of those little lead-in montages… You see, the Open is being played at historic Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Maryland, right outside of Washington, DC, and the montage was a little patriotic deal showing pictures along with clips of kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Only – the fine producers at NBC decided that it would be much better for the viewers not to be subjected to the phrase “under God,” not once – but twice.

This, of course, is not all that surprising – but then it happens. And we just let it happen. You see, the network is right that we are dupes, but not for the reasons they think – that is, that we are backwards, hayseed, Bible-thumpers in flyover country. Rather, we are dupes because we just keep watching and keep letting it happen. We want to watch sports, so we just gather ’round the TV for the latest erectile dysfunction commercial or teenage-targeted, sexed-up “Axe” commercial. We wait for the creative geniuses on Madison Ave. to give us another Go-Daddy clip while we bow-down to pink-clad athletes on the field promoting Susan Komen (and the money the organization gives to Planned Parenthood), all while watching the “green” broadcast from NBC where they praise each other for being planet friendly – no doubt having eschewed the limo for the Prius en route to the studio.

Just like the countless other things we do every day endorsing, either overtly or silently, the downgrade of God, marriage and most things virtuous – we just keep on watching.

I wish I thought there would be a “fix” beyond DVR. But then, that’s not really my point. My point is that the secular elitists continue to own it all and to push their view of the world into every aspect of our lives while we are forced to retreat to the corners of our churches and houses and pretend we are not supporting this nonsense when we watch and when we buy the products of the advertisers.

Oh – and Rory just birdied the first hole to go to minus 15… just in case you wondered how my glass house is doing…

But whatever one thinks of the Monarchy, in an increasingly pathetic MTV world – the ceremony today was extraordinary, and a good thing for the world to see. It was nothing short of impressive – timely, carried out with precision, dripping with military, christian and royal traditions. The music was magnificent – there were actual hymns rather than gaudy “praise music” rock bands, a church that looks like a church, and the participants and guests were dressed not just appropriately, but perfectly… The procession was extraordinary, with hand-sewn uniforms and white and black horses leading the carriages – the Union Jack lining the streets.

The event was broadcast to an estimated 2 billion people. And in my view – that is a good thing. It can hardly be bad – for whatever flaws of the people involved – to remind people through the broadcast of a high religious ceremony that Christ is Lord. It can hardly be bad to have 2 billion people hear a Christian reminder of the importance of marriage in furthering mankind. It can hardly be bad to remind people that for all its flaws, the Anglo-influence has indeed made the world a far better place. And it is hardly bad to remind people that tradition matters – that carrying ourselves the proper way matters.

While our President sends an iPod of his own speeches to the Queen, returns a bust of Winston Churchill, shares British nuclear serial numbers to the Russians and proclaims no better ally than France – the British carry on, broadcasting to the world that there is indeed a proper way to conduct business and a proper way to carry yourself as a leader of the free world. Perhaps it was no accident that the Obamas were not invited…

The Brits have more than their share of problems, but me thinks it is the Labour Party to blame and not the Monarchy. Today was a day for the British to be proud of the civilization they have built – and a civilization that shaped the world. A civilization that birthed America. Would that we be so lucky as to have any leader – at all – in this country to inspire us and to cause us to well up with pride.

Today, at least, I say God Save the Queen.

After all the back and forth, pledges, promises, tough fiscal talk and discussions of shutdown… Republicans have agreed to pass another short term CR with a few billion dollars in cuts – all being jammed through tonight by voice vote and basically sight-unseen (classic Washington transparency). This to get us to next week.

Then, Republicans are likely going to cut a deal for something around $40 billion max (likely upper-30′s) of cuts, and not uphold their own pledge to cut $100 billion (much less the smaller amount of $61 billion originally offered), and then fail to draw even the faintest line in the sand on policies (so-called “riders”) of any significance, such as federal funding of Planned Parenthood (i.e. tax dollars used to support the death of hundreds of thousands of babies annually) or Obamacare.

Oh sure, Republican leadership will hide behind some symbolic votes in the Senate (which can easily be gained through any real effort anyway) and behind supposedly “significant” cuts of $39 billion, or some such.

Keep in mind that our national deficit – not debt, mind you, but annual deficit – this year alone will surpass $1.5 Trillion, and thus, the $39 billion in cuts represents well less than 3% of the hole we are digging…

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is praised as the Second Coming for writing a budget that adds $6-9 trillion in debt, fails to touch social security, and is still well out of balance and hemorrhaging hundreds of billions of dollars in 10 years… and more importantly, the Ryan budget won’t even ever be implemented – at least not until 2013, that is if Republicans can find a candidate worth running, much less capable of winning.

So now we move to raising the federal debt ceiling for the umpteenth time without any significant structural change toward fiscal responsibility. Should we expect anything other than cutting a “deal” for a vote on the BBA or some other gesture as opposed to passage of the BBA (with a spending limit)?

Republicans clearly run scared from the 1995 Government shutdown despite the fact 1) Republicans gained 2 Senate seats and lost only 9 (if memory serves) House seats in a year when Bob Dole was acting as dead weight, 2) a shutdown only shuts down a portion of the federal government, 3) any shutdown saves at least some money and means less Washington interference in our lives, and 4) polls today indicate Americans would generally not be terribly bothered by such a shut down.

So instead of pushing hard for any real policy changes or truly significant, game-changing spending cuts – Republicans cut a deal for fear of being seen as obstructionist.

Leadership and fiscal austerity, Republican-style.

You see, they would rather have time to meddle further in the lives of Americans than in performing their constitutionally prescribed duty to advise and consent to Presidential nominees. As David Addington of the Heritage Foundation notes in Heritage WebMemo #3211, Senator Schumer has introduced S.679 and, along with 15 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, would like to reduce the number of Presidential appointments that require consent of the Senate while also establishing a “Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations” within the executive branch.

Addington properly dismisses this idea as detrimental to the Constitutional safeguard against the accumulation of power in one branch. In short -the idea is stupid and the result of busy-bodies who are too lazy to do their actual job effectively rather than coming up with yet another bill to tell us how to live our lives.

The job of a U.S. Senator is not that complicated. How about starting with the basics – like, I don’t know – balancing the budget sometime before the year 2100 and confirming only Presidential nominees who are actually qualified and believe in the Constitution (at this time, I’d like to give a little shout out to the absurdity of those Republican profiles in courage who voted for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – you know who you are… or see here , e.g.).

But, because the Senators of today are more interested in offering the 4000+ bills they offer each Congress so that they can tell you what kind of light bulbs to use, what restaurants must post on a menu in terms of calories or whatever other nonsensical waste of time and abuse of the Constitution they have in mind – they refuse simply to do their job.

And how about going one Congress – just ONE – without creating yet another working group, advisory committee, agency or other group of bureaucrats or politicians who will sit around and advise us on something. Can you do that? Please?

It is almost like Congress – and often, in particular, the Senate is a live parody of itself… carrying out a bad SNL skit before our very eyes on how to be both meddlesome and completely incompetent while offering non-solution “solutions” to problems that were generally created by them in the first place.

This bill is ill-advised, and worse yet, symptomatic of the problem with Washington… failure to do its actual job while coming up with jobs it has no business doing in the first place.

If that happens, it is great news – but there remains a big problem.

The problem is that by being so timid, Republicans are making their overall fight to cut spending all the more difficult. We all know that any cuts proposed will be painted by Democrats and a willing media as draconian and unfair. The poor will be out on the streets, food will be taken from children, etc…

That is why it was (and remains) so critical that Republican leadership get on the offensive immediately. They need to make the case for spending cuts, and that the $100 billion is nothing more than a first step of many more to come. To do otherwise means that we are going to just have more of the same – token cuts to pacify the base, or the Tea Party folks – but no real commitment to changing the culture of reckless spending that permeates Capitol Hill.

The American people gave Republicans license to cut – but Republicans will have to work very hard to do it and explain why it’s important as time goes on. The message is simple and goes something like this:

$100 billion is nothing more than a down payment as we begin the real task of getting our fiscal house in order. It reflects only about 7% of the $1.4 trillion deficit we have to close for starters… We cannot sustain this level of reckless spending and continue to mortgage the future of America. To do so continues to undermine our economy and will guarantee that the poor remain poor and that the jobless remain jobless. The government does not create jobs, the American people do. The government does not create wealth – it takes wealth. We promised to cut spending – and we are going to do just that. If President Obama and Senate Democrats want to stand in the way of fiscal responsibility, then they can answer to the American people.

It is time for Republicans to lead – and the $100 billion issue is but step 1 of literally hundreds more steps they need to take. They will never get there if they try to cut corners rather than standing up and doing what the American people asked them to do.

Yet, the editors of National Review today, while swooning over the latest budget proposal of Paul Ryan (R-WI), lauded the House GOP for an “actual honest-to-God reduction in federal outlays of $32 billion.”

How about we take a look at this with an honest-to-God perspective and the ability to check blind hope for supposed “conservative heroes” at the door?

1. Our national debt is over $14 trillion, climbing exponentially and heavily foreign-owned;
2. Annual spending has more than doubled over the last decade on the watch of both Republicans and Democrats – soon approaching $4 trillion per year – so any “actual cut” is a cut from ASTRONOMICAL spending;
3. Our nation has amassed (as NR’s Kevin Williamson noted last June) $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc…) and we have saved precisely $0 to pay for it just as Baby Boomers retire;
4. Republicans, supposedly recognizing all this, campaigned VERY SPECIFICALLY on cutting spending by returning to pre-bailout, pre-Obama binge levels (i.e. 2008) and doing it immediately; and
5. Non-security spending in 2008 was $378 billion. Non-security spending requested by Obama for 2011 is $478 billion. Paul Ryan’s budget would spend $420 billion. (see here )

So what to do? Praise, criticize or just take the day off and go hit some golf balls?

As much as the latter sounds appealing, Republicans have to be held accountable. They simply are not honoring their “pledge” to return to 2008 spending levels and thus, save $100 billion from the President’s budget. They are hiding behind the fact they will only get 7 months of the year to enact cuts. Yet, they were never vague about this. Consider the following comments from House GOP Whip and Ryan’s fellow self-proclaimed “Young Gun,” Kevin McCarthy, from the Sean Hannity show last September:

MR. HANNITY: … I guess the only question that I think some people may have is, and you have been addressing this, the idea that the contract worked, but then some Republicans lost their way. How does this document hold you accountable?

REP. MCCARTHY: … we lay out… in the Pledge to America that we are going to cut spending. We are going to do it right now, not next year, but now, where we roll them back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout, save $100 billion right now.

So, to be clear, that was to “roll [spending] back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout” “right now, not next year, but now…” Uh-huh.

Republicans are spinning their “cuts” as significant simply because they represent an “actual cut,” while trying to sweep their pledge under the rug. To do this, they are getting supposedly conservative stalwarts like the National Review and the Wall Street Journal to do their bidding.

Now, at least the editors of National Review are honest that what Congressman Ryan and the House GOP propose is only a $32 billion cut from 2010 spending – not the $74 billion that Republicans tout, which is a mythical cut off of a proposed Obama budget that was never, and will never be, adopted.

But NR then gets it wrong by clouding their perspective. You could replace $32 billion with $1 and keep the substance of the NR piece in place – because apparently getting any “real” cut is so earth-shatteringly impressive that we should all shout Hosanna… But even more, NR’s editors say we should not “underestimate the magnitude of the political challenge” and then go on to suggest that Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Jeff Flake, who are suggesting much more substantive cuts, need look to the “left and to the right” and recognize that President Obama is in the White House.

I am sure Paul and Flake are very appreciative for the tip and the reminder – and that they will continue to try to remind everyone else, including NR, that it is just a bit ironic to claim “first blood” when our stalwart “leadership” puts a band-aid on literally trillions of dollars of bleeding (of red ink) by cutting $32 billion, especially when the promise was for significantly more than that.

The whole point here is that it was Republicans who campaigned to significantly cut spending – and even wrapped themselves up in the Pledge to Nowhere to try to sell it. Yet, they want to hide behind partial years and how difficult it is rather than actually honor the pledge.

The text of the pledge is as follows:

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre- bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We will also establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending from this point forward.

In truth, the pledge might as well have been written thusly:

With common sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us [an annualized amount that would be comparable to] at least $100 billion [from a baseline of the President’s propose budget] in the [last three quarters of the] first year [combined with the first quarter of the second year] alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget [in approximately 40 years] and [prevent global financial meltdown by borrowing money from the Chinese] to pay down the debt.

This was such a simple issue. It really is not complicated. Return spending to 2008 levels – for the year. Offer the budget, and let the Senate and the President do what they will. The message is a winner – as last year’s election proved. Why can’t Republicans remember that?

But there they were, those bastions of Republican leadership promising this and that (because what we need from politicians are more promises).

Well, they promised to save $100 billion in spending in the first year. But suddenly, they’re debating what the definiton of the word “year” is, and whether we should “annualize” the cuts or consider them pro-rated. They are talking about how much to save under a Continuing Resolution vs. what they meant under the Obama budget. Now, the “leadership” says, they are going to let the conservatives cut more by offering amendments. One news story is saying the leadership is going to cut $32 billion. A post over at National Review slobbers over conservative-genius-and-savior-in-waiting, Paul Ryan and his proposal that supposedly gets us $74 billion in non-defense cuts (which Dan Holler points out is actually $42 billion short here).

Only in Washington.

Just cut $100 billion. Just cut it. Do it. Really… just do it. You promised to return to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout spending (as a start) and to “save” $100 billion (a totally arbitrary number that sounds good on top 10 lists and other “messaging” pablum promoted by idiot Washingtonians). We didn’t promise to do that. You did. Now you just need to do it and shut the hell up about it.

I mean, what level of stupidity is breathed into elected representatives and their self-aggrandizing staffers when they cross the Potomac that they think on the heels of arguably the most violent ballot-box revolution in the history of American politics it’s good messaging to nickle and dime us?

I thought the whole point of cutting $100 billion was a messaging point to show you “get it.” Sort of like a family just cutting cable when dad loses his job, when they still need to figure out how to pay for the mortgage, milk and diapers.

Just SHUT. THE. HELL. UP. and cut $100 billion. And then cut more. And then more… it’s an awfully long way to a balanced budget, much less to $14 trillion.

Good Lord.

This is great news. Really great news.

It is great news for those of us who recognize the need for new leadership in our nation, and the need to elect actual, proven, limited government, Constitution-respecting conservatives – especially from states like Texas.

The field is expected to be crowded, and there will be much more to say about this going forward. But, the simple truth is that there is absolutely no room for guesswork here. We must choose a Republican candidate with a proven track record of standing up and fighting for conservative principles.

This is no time for the Charlie Crists and Arlen Specters of the world. This is no time for “trusting” that someone is a conservative (think KBH, or perhaps David Souter comes to mind). This is no time for candidates who stand up and talk a big game about being conservative but don’t have a record of ever having actually stood up to fight.

The next U.S. Senator from Texas must not only proudly declare himself a conservative, but have the battle scars to show he is ready to go to Washington and fight to take our country back from the establishment.

Now, Ted can give a rousing speech to be sure and knows that it doesn’t do any good to have something important to say if you can’t get people to listen. But what makes Ted a truly remarkable candidate are two things: first, his deeply held and very well articulated belief in America and our need to stand up to defend her against the Obama agenda and the Washington establishment, and second, his extraordinary substantive record exhibited throughout his life, highlighted by his repeated fight for the Constitution and conservative principles as Solicitor General of Texas.

We will explore his record further in the future, as we will the other candidates in the field – good and bad.

For now, check out Ted’s website where you will notice that he does not have the standard-fare political website “issue” section (where any candidate can cut and paste what his political consultant tells him is the “right” answer), but rather has sections explaining his vision and offering his track record of success fighting for conservative principles.

His vision is simple – that a new generation of leaders must rediscover the kind of leadership exhibited by Ronald Reagan and stand up and fight to preserve the promise of America. That simplicity is rooted in his own life experiences – from his family’s immigrant roots to his own hard work and dedication to the law and the Constitution.

Ted’s track record is extensive. He has fought, among other things, to defend the Second Amendment, to protect American sovereignty, to fight for religious freedom, to defend life, to protect traditional marriage, to defend the military, to protect tort reform, to fight for voter ID – and perhaps most of all, to defend Texas from federal intervention into our way of living and doing things.

Without analyzing his merits vis-a-vis other potential candidates for now – it is important to know that Ted is the real deal. He is in this race to win it – and he brings to the race a deep knowledge of and commitment to the Constitution and our founding principles, and a proven record of fidelity to them. And that is why he is running. While he knows the chattering class will question his “readiness” for U.S. Senate without having run for a “lower” office – he also knows that the time is now to take our country back, and he looks out across the current Republican leadership and sees the void that we all see.

Ted understands why freedom matters. He was raised by his parents to appreciate the America to which his immigrant father fled Cuba at the age of 18 to escape torture by the Batista government of the time. Jay Nordlinger explains this well in a 2009 National Review article about Ted.

In short, any conservative who wants a Republican Party made up of conservative leaders who actually “get it,” and who wants to change the Senate, and thus the nation, one seat at a time should give Ted Cruz a long hard look. You will find a lot to like and may well just be inspired again.

It’s a new game in Texas.

The race for Texas Speaker of the House is a key test for newly elected Republicans in the state. Will they stand with the people of Texas or will they instead seek power for the sake of it, team up with the establishment and political consultants in Austin to keep it, and kiss the ring of liberal Republican (and incumbent Speaker) Joe Straus for powerful committee slots, instead of supporting the actual conservative in the race, Ken Paxton?

We may know the answer next Monday, January 10th, sometime after 1:30pm. That is when Republicans are scheduled to gather for a caucus meeting to discuss the Speaker position and to vote as a caucus to determine who Republicans think should be the Speaker.

Now, this is not setting well with Joe Straus and his squishy allies in the Texas House who are doing his bidding, such as Representative Dan Branch. Under the Texas Constitution, the Speaker is chosen on the floor of the Texas House by all members (Democrat and Republican) – and that is supposed to occur next Tuesday. So, Straus has Branch and his other minions (such as supposedly conservative Representative Doc Anderson, from Waco) harassing Republican Caucus chair Larry Taylor with letters and complaints that the caucus meeting is unconstitutional or somehow violates the Texas open meetings requirement.

The arguments are somewhere between absurd and weak (at best) – as was well explained by Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka (here) and noted Constitutional scholar Kelly Shackelford (with Liberty Institute), who explained that the caucus vote is “irrelevant Constitutionally,” and that “[t]his is foolishness and a clear attempt at a smokescreen for people who want to avoid the caucus.”

And that’s really the story, isn’t it? Straus wants to make this happen behind closed doors. Why? Because he initially came to power on the back of the support of Democrats. Pure and simple. As Erick, Drew Ryun and I have noted here before, he became Speaker with 65 Democrat votes and 11 Republican votes. So now, Straus wants to use his power and influence to buy votes with committee chairmanships and whatever else he can do.

Interestingly, Ken Paxton (along with tag along Warren Chisum, who still refuses to get out of the way) sent a letter to Mr. Taylor saying they’d be delighted to avoid any problems with open meetings requirements by having the caucus meeting in public view. Sure, why not? Let’s see which Republicans will stand with the people and which ones will stand with the establishment.

The people are speaking – and their message has been clear. Besides heading to the polls and growing the Republican majoirty from 76 to 101 in the House last November, they are making their feelings clear regarding the Speakership. Republicans in Collin, Comal, Bexar, Harris, Hood, Smith, Johnson, Rockwall, Travis and Dallas Counties have passed resolutions in favor of having a caucus vote and the selection of a conservative Speaker. The Heritage Alliance conducted a poll and found that 89% of Republican primary voters want a conservative Speaker. Tarrant County conducted a Straw Poll and Paxton won with over 85% of the vote – 90 votes to Straus’ and Chisum’s 7 each.

And, Paxton is racking up endorsements from Texas groups by the day – including Concerned Women for America, Texas Alliance for Life, Young Conservatives of Texas, Gun Owners of America and numerous others. And a number of groups are going to “score” the Speaker vote heavily when rating House Republicans this cycle – such as Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Eagle Forum and the Heritage Alliance.

Straus on the other hand, is building up his support among the political class and professional consultants. In Capitol Inside, editor Mike Hailey wrote a piece in late December that outlined the efforts by the Straus camp to build support among the political consultants. Of his lead consultant, Gordon Johnson, Hailey wrote that he “solicited the consultants’ opinions on what the speaker could do to help them help their clients.” He went on to add, “[t]he group began huddling about once every six to eight weeks for strategy meetings that Straus and Karen Hughes, the co-director of the speaker’s re-election bid, would drop in on for a while when they had the chance.” And, “it’s no coincidence that the Straus supporters who’ve held their ground through the storm are represented by many of the same consultants with whom the speaker’s team cultivated working relationships during the past year.”

In short – he’s working to buy off colleagues to retain power, and using the establishment, including big national names like Karen Hughes, to do it.

Ken Paxton may not be perfect – he’s be the first to tell you he’s not. But for whatever faults he may have – he is conservative and has a conservative voting record to back it up. He is supported by conservatives in a year that the people of Texas sent a strong message that Texas is a conservative state and should be governed that way.

Will the 101 Republican members of the Texas House stand up and do the right thing? We’ll be watching, you can guarantee that.

In the 111th Congress, there were 4059 bills introduced in the Senate, and 6561 bills introduced in the House – resulting in 342 laws enacted.

In the 110th Congress, there were 3741 bills introduced in the Senate, and 7336 bills introduced in the House – resulting in 460 laws enacted.

This all the while – gasp – the rules of the Senate require 60 votes to shut off debate before proceeding to a matter or voting on it, often referred to as the filibuster.

So, what’s the problem? Does anyone in America – besides the arrogant Democrats in Congress who have been engaged in an unprecedented power grab since being handed a historic defeat by the American people last November – honestly believe that Congress needs to pass more legislation?

Do a better job? Sure. But MORE? Of course not.

Much is being made of the need to change the rules of the Senate so that it does not take 60 votes at various stages in the legislative process. To have such a threshold is said to be unfair and undemocratic. And, to be sure, I have no doubt that some Republicans believe this would be a good thing so that we have a better shot at upending Obamacare.

But the simple truth is that the only thing standing between us and a non-stop barrage of federal “solutions” to our “problems” is the 60 vote requirement. Even more, eliminating this requirement will create an extremely volatile legislative environment, where even the little deliberation and debate we have today is tossed aside in favor of “doing something.”

You see – when Congress starts saying “we need to do something,” we should all hunker down and pray that they not actually do it. “Doing something” means that Washington amasses more power, federalism and the Constitution are ignored and liberty suffers.

The filibuster, actual (i.e. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) or via voting procedures (i.e. 60 vote threshold), is inherently conservative. The slower that Congress can enact legislation, the less damage it can do.

For those concerned about getting votes to overturn liberalism such as Obamacare – don’t be. We can win that by taking it to the American people. It would be far worse to arm Washington politicians with the ability to pass legislation more easily and to “do more.”