His comments were made in the context of recent comments by the new president of the National Rifle Association essentially asserting that part of the justification for the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is for citizens to defend themselves against the tyranny of government, a purpose which was decidedly opposed by dictatorial regimes like Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

In a rant tonight against this core concept and against several States’ vain (and, admittedly, silly) attempts at using “nullification” as a means of rendering void federal gun laws in their territories, Sen. Murphy called the NRA president’s words a “total bastardization of the Second Amendment.”

“The Second Amendment is not an absolute right.  It is not a God-given right,” Murphy declared without equivocation.  “It has always had conditions upon it, just like the First Amendment has.”

In other words, because we can’t start firing cannons or machine guns in the street, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or engaging in religious-based human sacrifices – in short, there are “conditions” upon our rights – they are “not God-given rights.”

Few disagree that there cannot be some conditions placed on the implementation of individual rights protected in the Constitution.  But the idea that these rights are suddenly “not God-given” rights – or, to use a more secular but arguably interchangeable term, “natural rights” – is an affront to the very foundations of republican and constitutional government in America.

Dr. AWR Hawkins makes a good case concerning the God-given nature of our natural rights in The Daily Caller: “For the same laws of nature of that warn our consciences against killing in cold blood or stealing, also incline us toward owning our own things and protecting the things we own. And perhaps most importantly, they also teach that our greatest property is our own life, and that such a property must be defended. In fact, because God has given us life, we have a duty to defend it.”

To flatly and without equivocation falsely and without basis assert, as Sen. Murphy does, that our inalienable right to self-defense, as protected in the Second Amendment, is not “God-given” (or “natural”) is to undermine the very fabric of our society and the fundamental nature of our constitutionally-guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

But Murphy’s comments belying his lack of understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment don’t end there.  He rants on:

[T]his idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.  If that was the case, we wouldn’t have also included treason in the United States Constitution.  We basically said that if you take arms up against the government, we’re gonna knock your block off.  And that’s what the early presidents ended up doing in the Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.  So the Second Amendment is not designed to allow a citizenry to arm itself against the government.

Murphy’s problem, though, is that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

1. Notice how the senator, in his declaration of what he feels the amendment is not intended for, does not even attempt to describe what he sees as the purpose of the Second Amendment.  That’s because the folks who are assailing it today refuse to acknowledge that there is a purpose to the amendment – that is, other than “hunting and target shooting.”

2. He’s also just plain wrong on the “original intent” – and the Supreme Court, in its 2007 decision in D.C. vs. Heller affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, makes this much clear.  Matt MacBradaigh at policymic recently explained nine distinct purposes of the Second Amendment according to the Supreme Court.  This explicitly includes defense against tyranny:

You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

In fact, the ratification debates made it abundantly certain that the right to bear arms – and its ultimate inclusion by James Madison and George Mason in the Bill of Rights – was indeed a natural right (read: God-given right, “endowed by our creator”) intended just as much for defense against tyrannical government as it is for general self-protection. Mason, known as on of the “Fathers of the Bill of Rights,” put it succinctly at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14, 1788:

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.”

No one is to the point of “disarming the people” in a robust way that could be construed as “confiscation” at this point, but the point Mason makes is nevertheless a clear one: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the best and most effectual and most effectual way to prevent against “enslave[ment].”  This is why the Second Amendment includes use of the term “militia” and such was a focal point of the Founders.  As Mason said on June 16, 1788: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”  There’s a reason why Hitler and other tyrants of history confiscated the arms of average citizens – and why the Americans were able to succeed against the British in the Revolution.

3. Yes, treason is included in the Constitution for a reason.  But does the existence of treason really set aside the right of the people to defend against tyranny?  Were the resistance fighters during World War II unjust and outside their rights, then, to commit treason against the Third Reich by taking up arms?  Should the American patriots who defeated our British monarchs in the Revolutionary War have tucked their weapons aside and not launched a war for independence, because the illegality of treason outweighs the tyranny of the government?  When Thomas Jefferson observed that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” I think he knew exactly: the people by right and by duty must pay the price of liberty (that of “eternal vigilance,” in Jefferson’s words) and be ready to spill blood in an affront to tyranny.

By no means am I advocating for a “sovereign citizen,” anarchist movement and revolution against the government.  Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights hoped that the American experiment would last for even less time than it has – that liberty would reign without a new, bloody revolution.  And yet the Founding Fathers were always wary of history, of which they were adept students.  They knew that tyrants had risen and fallen since the dawn of time and experienced it first hand – and they consequently knew that a free people must be capable of defending themselves in case such time should again arise.  Treason is a tool provided in the Constitution for the government to prevent against unwarranted insurrection or crimes against the American people and their country.  It was never intended for “crimes against the state” as used in dictatorial societies where the state is supreme.  Here in America, the people rule.

4. Finally, when it comes to the early “rebellions” he mentions, Senator Murphy at best makes false analogies and at worse doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  First, Shays’ Rebellion took place from 1786 to 1787, but the Constitutional Convention had not even signed the Constitution until September of 1787.  Moreover, this rebellion was one of the crucial justifications for a new constitution, as opposed to mere revisions of the Articles of Confederation: it had nothing to do about “tyranny” and everything to do with the lack of rule of law under the Articles and the state and national governments’ utter inability to enforce what laws were on the books.  Second, the Whiskey Rebellion again was a challenge not to individual rights by a tyrannical government, which was met with force by the people.  Rather, as with Shays’ Rebellion, it was a show of force by rebels who refused to accept the legitimacy of the federal government and its clear laws under the Constitution.  The reason George Washington met the rebels with a show of force was to affirm that legitimacy and counter the perception that the new government could be toyed with at a very delicate period of our history.  The idea that these rebellions could be used to demonstrate that the Second Amendment was not in part intended to protect against tyranny is an inaccurate analogy.

The debate over gun rights in this country has been laced with so much demagoguery that it can be tough to decipher what’s true from what’s false.  But one thing’s for certain: when a United States Senator asserts that our constitutionally-guaranteed and protected rights are not “God-given” – and uses that as part of a false argument against those natural, God-given rights – it’s clear that the demagoguery continues to reach new lows.

Watch the entire Maddow opening segment and interview with Sen. Murphy here.

The post Dem Chris Murphy (CT): Constitutional Rights are “not God-given rights” appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

A revolution brewed, and liberty prevailed.

Today another battle is brewing – only this time, instead of war against the Native Americans offering justification for actions taken with no representation from those affected, the argument now centers on “wear and tear of our streets” versus “no annexation and taxation without representation.”

Tomorrow night at 7 p.m., the City of Centennial will cast a crucial vote that will effectively decide the fate of hundreds of Arapahoe County residents. This vote is a referendum on the value that the City of Centennial places on property rights and limited government.

Does the City – which was founded on these core principles when Greenwood Village was on its own annexation rampage – still value them, or will they lay the groundwork for an inevitable outright grab of unincorporated territory that neither wishes to join nor will have any say (representation) in that vote? That is the fundamental question that the Centennial City Council must, and will, address.

The Denver Post explains:

The city of Centennial is poised to annex open space that would allow it to gobble up two subdivisions in the future by using a provision in state law that critics say violates the very spirit of the burgeoning young city’s formation.

On Monday, Centennial will vote on whether to annex several parcels of land in a move that essentially surrounds two subdivisions filled with almost 1,400 homes total.

The city’s annexation could cause the surrounded two subdivisions to become “enclaves” or islands within the city in the eyes of state law. The distinction would allow Centennial to annex the two neighborhoods, Siena and Tuscany, in three years — and without the consent of the residents.

From the perspective of so many of more than 1,400 homeowners – of which my parents are one pair and many of our family friends constitute others – there are several key and crucial arguments against what some critics label as a “land grab.” Here are the top five.

5. Last month, city attorneys and planners presented to a strong contingent of residents of the Siena and Tuscany neighborhoods. The reason they did this, however, did not seem to be in a good-faith initiative based in their own interest in goodwill. It was, rather, because The Farm residents demanded as such as part of their compliance with Centennial’s insistence on annexation. Feeling considerable pressure and intimidation to concede, according to several sources, the neighborhood that will allow for the creation of the “enclave” gave in. They worked out an agreement to at least make it mildly amicable for homeowners, but as part of that agreement, the City was compelled to hold a public hearing with Siena and Tuscany neighbors to hear their concerns. But why did it take so much pressure to have this meeting in the first place? Why did The Farm residents have to, for lack of a better term, force the City to hold it? Why didn’t the city do it out of its own desire to demonstrate goodwill? That has some residents questioning motives not of the city council, but of the city bureaucrats that have been driving this effort for years.

4. For all the work that was done to get a public hearing with Siena and Tuscany residents to take palace, there sure was little that came out of it. I attended the meeting, which was, to be honest, distressingly unsatisfactory. Among the presenters were the deputy city attorney (who largely ran the meeting), the city attorney, and the city planner. With each question there was a general trend of action: provide a lawyerly dodge of the question and stick to the talking points. Having worked in a law firm for a year and a half, and been involved in politics going back into the start of my teenage years, I couldn’t help but feel that this was a purely political endeavor. Here are some examples:
   Question: “Is it acceptable to take away our options as residents of unincorporated Arapahoe County?”
   Response: “Good question! We’re not taking away residents’ rights or options. We’re just giving the ‘option’ to a future council.”
   Claim: “The level of service we provide is better when it comes to snowplows, public works, animal control, and police services.”
   Question: “Can you support these claims? For example, how much better is Centennial compared with Arapahoe County, in measurable terms?”
   Response:“Good question! I’m sorry, we don’t have those statistics and weren’t aware that we would need to provide them.”I was taken aback here. The city claims better snowplow services, 90% animal control success rates, and non-disrupted police services, but they could not make a single point of comparison to what residents are presently getting? I could not figure out what the point of the hearing was. If it wasn’t to inform residents fully and adequately, with honesty and respect and without patronization, what was it? Residents felt like their concerns weren’t taken seriously.

3. While it is true that property taxes will not rise by any noticeable amount, that does not mean that Siena/Tuscany residents will not see a noticeable increase in taxes. Perhaps most significantly, sales tax. As the deputy city attorney did reveal at the neighborhood meeting, a $30,000 car would net a resident $600 more in sales tax if purchased in Centennial than under unincorporated jurisdiction. Especially in this economy, that’s not chump change: it’s real money. Likewise, as The Post reports, “those residents would also be required to pay franchises taxes, such as for water and power, that they currently don’t pay now.” As Siena Homeowners Association president Jamie Wollman observes in the article, “Centennial was created because they felt they were being bullied. Ten years later, they’re doing the same thing to improve their tax base.” Likewise, the increased regulations that will come as a result of annexation would be both burdensome and tiresome. Why would residents want to give up no leash laws and turn themselves, their homes, and their families over to other upticks in regulation? Perhaps concern #2 will address that, because Centennial offers better services that outweigh greater government.

2. The claim most strongly advocated by the City is that the “level of services will get better.” The city has “better snowplow services” that “plow more miles in residential than [county public works]. The city’s “animal control returns more than 90 percent of the dogs they handle” as they are “very active.” And county “police services would not be disruptive” in case of an emergency. All three are dubious claims at best. First, as the deputy attorney explained to my mother after the neighborhood meeting, residential snowplows in Centennial generally do not begin until roughly 9 inches. Yet how often do we get that amount of snow? What is the starting point for Arapahoe County, and is it particularly worse? No answers were available. (Besides, residents could always agree to pay more to the HOA – with real representation – to get the HOA to provide limited plow services at 9 inches anyway.)Second, excluding the fact that a detailed comparison regarding animal control could not be provided, it stands to reason that Centennial would be good at animal control: with an outrageous $600,000 paying 5 Centennial dog catchers, you better hope you’re getting your money’s worth! My understanding is that Greenwood Village has no dog catches yet Arapahoe County has three for the whole county. The lack of statistics provided to residents means that a comparison simply cannot be made. How can we conclude that Centennial’s services are better in this area without the ability to make a single point of comparison?To the third point, if “disruptions” in police services – which happen to be provided to Centennial by Arapahoe County – were frequent and noticeable, the City might have a point there. But they are neither. The fact of the matter is that, for many Unincorporated Arapahoe County residents, the increase in services from Centennial annexation – nominal at best, dubious at worst – is simply insufficient justification for higher taxes and more regulation.The residents of Siena and Tuscany favor the embodiment of limited government: “we don’t see any need for more services if it means more government, more taxes, and more regulation.” In the words of one community resident, “You can keep your snowplow.”

1. Arguably the single most significant argument against Monday’s vote can be summed up in four words: “no annexation without representation.” Residents of Siena and Tuscany – citizens of the United States of America – are incensed over the fact that they are simply do not, and cannot, have any say in whether or not this vote will go through and whether or not annexation will take place in three years. The deputy city attorney made that much clear. Consequently, although the law is technically on the City’s side, the property rights of Unincorporated Arapahoe County residents are at stake in what can only be labeled as a “land grab.” Any genuine advocate for property rights and representation, as our founding fathers most certainly were, would refuse to sit idly by and let such actions take place unabated.The argument presented by Mayor Noon, for whom I have nothing but respect, to The Post is thus: it is “only fair that residents who live in Siena and Tuscany pay their share for city services they use, such as roads and parks. A traffic study showed that on a 2-mile stretch of Arapahoe Road east of Parker Road, 70 percent of the drivers do not live in Centennial, Noon said.” She told The Post, “”When they leave their neighborhood, they use (our roads) every day. Those cars are contributing to the wear and tear of those streets.I cannot help but feel that this argument rings much like a watered-down case for British taxation as discussed at the outset of this article. From the Empire’s perspective, they had spent countless pounds and shillings on defending the American colonies from Native American attack. Why should their mainland subjects bear the full burden of the costs of protecting the British colonies without the colonials having to offer up any payment to help offset those costs? True representation was irrelevant, for the colonists had “virtual representation.” It was “only fair that colonists who live in America pay their share for British services they use, such as military defense against the Indians.”This time it is an American mayor making a similar argument: “My citizens are paying for roads they drive on, help pay for the park that helps their value of their homes go up.” So this means the City of Centennial should grab property and violate property rights without letting affected residents have any say? In effect, not only is this “annexation without representation” – it is “taxation without representation,” as residents will be forced to pay more in taxes without any say in the matter. As The Farm HOA president Kimberly Armitage said, “What additional services am I going to get other than increased taxes?”

   I do want to make one thing clear in this analogy: I do not mean, in any way, to equate Centennial with the British Empire. They are incongruent indeed. But given the principles and issues involved, it presents a very interesting parallel and point of comparison that is worthy of consideration.

What happens on Monday, and again in three years, doubtlessly won’t affect me personal. I am therefore writing today on behalf of my parents and family friends, but also as someone who is deeply concerned about principle, limited government, and the dismantling of property rights in the United States of America over the last several decades. It is genuinely disheartening to see such actions taken in my own community where I grew up.

Will the City of Centennial pursue “annexation and taxation without representation?” Or will the City Council do the right thing and decline to assail property rights and force more government on independent residents who are fine with fewer services in exchange for less government?

A “No” vote is the right thing to do.

The post No Annexation Without Representation: Colorado Property Rights Under Attack appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

Christmas is in the morning and Jimmy is back on the show after a 3 week hiatus. He chimes in his thoughts of the NORAD Santa tracker, and the gang briefly discusses the holiday and then ponder how Santa works his Christmas magic!

Next, Jimmy discusses taxes and spending. He offers his opinion on the current ‘small deal,’ which would raise taxes on those making over $250,000.00 a year and not do anything about the ridiculous spending problem. Republican’s must stand firm on the spending cuts, and let the President know that they will not budge on spending reduction.

After the brief discussion on the cliff and the tax conversation, we switch over to the gun control debate. Jimmy talks about the statements made by NRA President Wayne LaPierre in regards to adding armed guards to every school in the country.

We finish off the show by talking about the Christmas holiday and what this joyous holiday still means to Americans.

Click and listen to the fun and entertaining show!

Kelley and Company 12/24

The post Kelley and Company 12/24 – Christmas and Current Events appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

The problem is, it’s not true.

In fact, this was merely a statement made of the State Chair, by the State Chair, and for the State Chair.  Despite this, it was made to look like the announcement was, in fact, on behalf of a united College Republicans.

As the former chair of the Regis University College Republicans, a continued advocate for College Republicans across the state, and a member of the media, I feel compelled to shed light on what really happened.

The Story

At the Federation Convention in 2011, during my tenure as President of the Regis University College Republicans, a strong majority of those in attendance approved a resolution favoring civil unions. That same resolution, to my knowledge, was not considered a binding resolution to be used for the future CFCR boards.

(As a side note, I voted for that resolution, and have been on the record as favoring civil unions on television and on the radio for some time now.  That is a debate that I have had with fellow Republicans and conservatives, and one which I am ready to continue to have.)

Regardless of my personal views, as chapter chairs and representatives of our respective schools’ Republicans, again, our understanding was that it was a short-term resolution of the Federation as represented at the convention.  We knew that this may or may not be continued at the 2012 state gathering and at future conventions, and understood that future groups of College Republican leaders may have differing views on this and other issues.

At the state convention in 2012, there was no such vote on resolutions.  There was no extension of support by the chapters, individually or at large.  There was no discussion on the issue whatsoever.

And my friends who are still in the College Republicans (both at the chapter and state leadership levels) tell me they hadn’t discussed the subject at all.

In fact, I haven’t heard a peep about civil unions from my friends in the College Republicans in a long time.

That is, until last Tuesday – when the State Chair unilaterally sent out his press release.

I have since been informed that not a single chapter chair I know, nor those I know in the chair’s own state leadership team, were made at all aware that this public statement would come out.  Nor did they give their consent or even have the opportunity to do so.

Let me repeat: this press release, which seems to represent Colorado’s College Republicans on the whole and gives off that impression, was made without consultation with or the support of the member chapters and other state leaders of the Colorado Federation of College Republicans.

Yet it was made to seem as though this was the case, and the Chair spoke on behalf of the Federation.

I am a proud former chapter chair, who still has many friends in College Republicans, and has opened his arms to help any CR who needs it.

I maintain a deep faith and a sincere belief that this organization has an outstanding record of training the next generation of Republican leaders to successfully elect conservative candidates to office, engage them in the political process, and teach our future leaders the importance of collaboration and teamwork to get things done for the good of both party and principle.

Consequently, I am extremely disturbed and disappointed by this development, which I feel cuts into that very notion of what the CFCR stands for..

Although many College Republicans do favor passage of civil unions, it was inappropriate and incorrect for the State Chairman to publicly and unilaterally make this broad statement on a controversial issue such as this.  He was not at all ‘clear’ that other chapters did not favor this announcement or declare support for this position.

That a State Chairman of the College Republicans – in this case, Vince Szilagyi - would unilaterally send out a press release taking a stand on an extremely controversial issue, on behalf of his constituents, without so much as talking to his fellow College Republicans or even attempting to do so – it surprises and disheartens me greatly.

I have already talked with a number of people in different political circles who have heard about this news, as word has gotten around, and I’ve even read that this statement was even referenced in testimony before the state legislature.  As a longtime supporter of CR’s, I think the record needs to be set straight.

Please let your friends know that, while many (I’d say most) College Republicans may support civil unions in Colorado, their voices were not heard.  They had no say.  They did not consent.

The press release was both inaccurate and did not appropriately represent the views of Colorado’s CR’s.

Whether you favor civil unions, as I do, or you do not, there can be no doubt that this is not the appropriate way to advocate for an issue given such a position of leadership.

The post College Republican State Chair misled public on civil unions appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

Based on Jimmy Sengenberger’s Christmas satire pieces of the past few years, this lengthy but entertaining bit of audio is timed right for Christmas.  The “report” features Mr. Grinch, Ebenezer Scrooge, disgruntled elves, an ACLU attorney, and so much more.  Don’t miss this in-depth, fun report!

Santa’s Christmas Controversy 12/24

*Written by Jimmy Sengenberger, performed by Jimmie Viles

The post Santa Claus ignites controversy on Christmas Eve, conservatives outraged appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

It’s the most immortal scene in Chuck Jones’ animated adaptation of Dr. Seuss’ epic Christmas masterpiece, How the Grinch Stole Christmas!: Max, the Grinch’s loyal (if horribly abused) canine companion, and the thief’s sleigh full of stolen possessions from the citizens of Whoville are about to fly off the cliff, destroying everything in the packages, boxes, and bags that are with them up on the mountaintop.

The Grinch, suddenly overwhelmed by the Spirit of Christmas, realizes the errors of his ways. His heart grows three sizes that day, so they say, surging strength through his thin frame.  And our notorious villain picks up the sleigh, saves it and Max from the daunting cliff, and rides down to the village, joining in the celebration and even carving the roast beast.

Such a happy ending to one of Christmas’s most engaging cartoon shorts.  Unfortunately, our horribly-named fiscal cliff isn’t likely to have anyone save the day.

In the real world, we’re faced with our own cliff – and this time the sleigh is filled with taxpayer money en route to Uncle Sam’s grubby coffers.  If Congress fails to reach a deal by January 1, the Bush tax rate cuts – which supposedly used to be just “for the rich” but suddenly are now extremely helpful “for the middle class” – will expire, and the “Sequester” will go into effect – that is, nominally (but supposedly “draconianly”) reducing the rate of growth of government spending, with very minimal actual cuts.

The reality is that Congress and the President seem to be fundamentally incapable of reaching a deal.  Speaker John Boehner, the day after the election, came out in what I felt at the time was brilliant starting move: put revenue on the table to demonstrate that the Republicans were executing a good-faith effort to solve the problem, and negotiate from that starting point.

Over time, however, as President Obama continued to push incessant tax rate increases for the so-called rich and present only faux spending cuts as meaningless as ever, Boehner should have abandoned the revenue talk and focused attention where it belongs: on government spending, which continues to be at its highest levels since World War II.  Instead, fearful that the Republicans will get blamed for inaction (which will happen no matter what they do), our esteemed Republican leader has seen fit to negotiate more and more on revenue and tax increases, culminating in today’s proposal to tax millionaires more, reminiscent of Obama’s “Buffet Rule” initiative.

Boehner keeps giving Obama more and more on “revenue” and leaving it up to Obama to propose spending cuts – emboldening the president and seemingly strengthening his hand.  That’s like telling your 10-year-old child to propose a Christmas present budget without keeping income in mind.  It’s ludicrous.

No matter what, President Obama – who has since declined Boehner’s proposal – is going to keep fighting for the anti-growth tax increases that Republican leadership appears all-too-willing to give to our illustrious leader – meaning a clear political victory, wrapped up in a bow and placed in his stocking just in time for his Christmas vacation in Hawaii, and all at the expense of jobs and the economy.

It is sheer insanity: Republicans keep giving more and more ground on taxes and “revenue” – which is not the problem – and, yet again, pushing off addressing spending until later – kicking the lump of coal down the road in some absurd anticipation that they’ll actually get more spending cuts then in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.  (Because we all know that worked so well the last time they negotiated on that one.)

Have our Republican leaders not learned anything about this president in the past four years?  Apparently not.

As I see it, there are two possible alternatives for this fiscal cliff debacle:

1. Obama gets some version of what he wants – tax hikes on the so-called rich (really, on investments and small businesses) and insignificant reductions in spending increases in the future.
2. The Grinch stays grinchy, his heart remains small, and we go over the cliff – resulting in higher taxes for all but deeper (yet still fairly small) cuts in spending increases that at least get us started on the path to fiscal sanity.

Believe me, I’ve been resisting this inkling for weeks, but it’s time we choose the latter.  I’m sorry, Max, but we’ve got to go over the cliff.

At this rate, and with the faulty leadership we’ve got in Congress right now, economy-crippling tax increases are going to happen no matter what.  Obamacare taxes will start going into full effect next month, and if Obama gets his way on the “fiscal cliff,” we’d not only see a rise in income taxes on countless small business owners, but a 57% increase in capital gains tax rates to 23.6% and a near-tripling in dividends tax rates to 43.2% (including Obamacare surcharges).  Talk about a way to gut economic growth and launch us into a second recession.  As the nonpartisan Tax Foundation reports:

When Tax Foundation economists modeled the long-term effects of increasing the capital gains top rate to 20 percent and letting the tax rate on dividends revert to 39.6 percent for people in the top two brackets, they found that this policy would lower GDP by 2.15 percent and that it would not raise any new tax revenues because of its depressive effects.

Moreover, if a tax increase deal is reached, it will likewise be negotiated at the expense of reductions in future government spending, much less real spending cuts.  In other words, the supposedly “draconian” sequester will not go into effect – and Obama will undoubtedly offset any supposed “cuts” he’s proposed with new pet porkulous projects.

So now the question becomes, do we raise taxes on investors and small business owners, consequently crippling the economy more, but barely put a scrape on Uncle Sam’s spending sleigh – or do we go over the cliff and raise taxes on everyone, also crippling the economy, but finally get at least a stab at some much-needed spending cuts to help us deal with the looming fiscal crisis?

After significant observation and consideration, I’ve concluded that the only serious option is the latter.  I vehemently oppose tax increases on anyone, especially me!  But with the president we’ve got, and the disappointing leadership in our own party, we’ve really got no choice.  It’s time to stand our ground for the greater good and for principle – and to look toward the long-run, not just the short run.

My apologies to Max and the people of Whoville.  Keep your chins up, guys.  We’ve just got to keep up the fight to preserve liberty and economic sanity.

That’s what 2014 and 2016 are for.

This is just another call to action.

The post Sorry, Max: We’re going over the cliff – and the Grinch can’t save you appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

With the Christmas holiday just around the corner, Jimmy briefly talks to Steve Kelley about the future of religion and the future of the Christian faith in the wake of the absurd attacks on Christmas, most notably by Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee.

Next, Jimmy chimes in his thoughts on the looming fiscal cliff. Both Jimmy and Steve Kelley have little faith that this incompetent congress will be able to reach an agreement to prevent the US from figuratively falling over the edge. They briefly discuss how revenue is not the problem at hand, but rather the unbridled spending taking place.

Click play to listen to the very informative conversation!

Kelley and Company 11/30

The post Kelley and Company Week in Review 11/30 – Post Election and Pre-Fiscal Cliff appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

To start off the show, Jimmy speaks with campaign messaging expert Mark Montini on the phone to chime in on the election’s outcome. He chats about what Romney should have done to retain momentum over the President and how he could have ramped up his Presidential campaign.

Next,  resident ‘lefty’ Joby from Golden debates Jimmy on the reelection of President Obama. He explains what he, as a liberal, believes the conservatives needs to do to have a chance in future national elections and what he thinks the outcome means on a national scale.

Then, we take some calls from the public about the looming fiscal cliff. Talk turns to entitlements and how they are the main culprit for the increasing and terrifying debt. We also chat about taxes, what reforms need to take place, and the future of the deficit.

Finally, Jimmy wraps up the show by summarizing what the Grand Old Party needs to do to retake Colorado and the country, as well as to move forward as the party of real American values and as the party that can save the United States.

Click to listen to an enlightening and entertaining show!

Kelley and Company – 11/9

The post Kelley and Company 11/9 – The Future of the GOP appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

First, Jimmy discusses the outcome of the 2012 elections, as well as his experience of broadcasting live on Election Night alongside Steve from Sports Authority Field at Mile High.

Then, Colorado GOP State Chairman Ryan Call calls in to offer his insights on the President’s reelection. He weighs in on the reason for the outcome of the vote, why the GOP has a state disadvantage in all three branches of government, and his opinion on what the conservative party needs to do to win back Colorado.

Next, Cato Institute senior fellow Dan Mitchell discusses John Boehner’s remark about raising revenue to avoid the fiscal cliff, how taxes should be handled, and the frightening size of the government and national debt.

Also during the show, a number of callers share their thoughts on the outcome of the election as well as what they think lies ahead and what the Republican Party needs to do to regain momentum.

Click play to listen to some great discussions and debates!

Kelley and Company – 11/8

The post Kelley and Company 11/8 – The Election appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.

During the show, Jimmy chats with Mike about his initial interest in politics and the idea that we as individuals know what is best for ourselves and our families rather than taking guidance and marching orders from the government. He addresses why such a large majority of today’s youth votes liberal, why he thinks that this statistic is going to change in the near future, and why he has hope that the young vote will begin to lean towards the right.

Also, Jimmy talks about The Securing Our American Dream Rally that he and other young Republican’s from around Colorado organized. Cory Gardner, Republican U.S. Representative for Colorado’s 4th congressional district, was the keynote speaker at the rally. Alongside Congressman Gardner, many young voters talked about why they aren’t buying into the Obama ‘cool-aid.’ They also wanted to send a message to the public that there are people out there that are fed up with the failed Obama administration and can see through the liberal media’s protective shield.

Finally, Mike and Jimmy take calls on the hope for the youth vote leaning towards Mitt Romney and how to defend their case for young voters.

Please check out the Mike Rosen Show by clicking here and click to play and listen to a great radio hour of discussion on the hope for the future of America’s young voters!

Mike Rosen Show

The post Mike Rosen Show 10/18 – The Youth Vote appeared first on Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger.