Gotta Make it to Monday...

So, last night, I went and saw Tim Hawkins live. (This was my cousin Brent's Christmas present to me.) And it was hysterical. He points out all the strange things we do in church, makes fun of the Baptist's seeming allergy to alcohol, laughs at people who have only been married for 6 months ("Welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games. You're gonna die!") etc. It was a blast, and I'm grateful to my cousin for the Christmas present

But before that, it was an interesting, long, exhausting weekend; in which I got somewhere around 15 hours of sleep from Thursday-Sunday. I was at the Youth and Government state conference down in Austin, where we set up a mock government for two days. It was a truly enjoyable experience, but there was one troubling issue. (Actually more than that, but this is one specific one that's a major issue right now.)

Legalizing marijuana. I have heard all kinds of arguments on both sides of this issue, and indeed, I've been on both sides of this issue at different points in my life; but here is where I stand, and where, Lord willing, I will continue to stand. I am not condemning those who disagree with me, because I've disagreed with my position at times; but I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong, and here is why.

When someone says that we should legalize marijuana, there is typically a standard set of arguments that they use:

1. If we legalize it, we can tax it

2. We'll put the cartels out of business

3. It's not really harmful to people anyway.

1. If we legalize it, we can tax it.

This is absolutely correct. If the government is so desperate for cash that it is willing to take the proceeds it gets from drug money, then yes, they can legalize it, and get the tax money. It is my personal belief that money gotten this way is cursed, and if you think I'm wrong, I would encourage you to take a look at the lives (and deaths) of people who make their livings this way.

2. We'll put the cartels out of business.

I want to put the cartels out of business as bad as anybody. I want them to get their life-ruining products out of my country, but legalizing marijuana is not the way to do it, and here is why.

1.Cartels don't mind killing people. This is common knowledge. If you don't believe me, go live in Colombia for a few days, and talk to me if you get back.

2.Cartels have people, including hitmen, working for them, in the United States. This is a common-sense business move for them, and the Star-Telegram even did an article a few years ago when we caught and convicted some of them.

So, it stands to reason that cartels wouldn't mind killing off their legal competitors, they would stay in business, and we would have been accessories to the murder of our own citizens. Not only would they still be in business, we would be giving them a legal sideline that they could use to launder their money. If we're looking to put the cartels out of business, (I am) legalizing their product is the worst thing we can do.

3. It's not harmful anyway.

This is where it gets a little dicey. Is it harmful in the same way that cocaine and heroine are harmful? No. But to say it's not harmful is not, in fact the case.

In The Cross and the Switchblade, David Wilkerson lays out the dangers of drugs, and gives a special nod to marijuana, specifically because it appears to not be harmful. Here are the dangers of marijuana.

It is 100% accurate to say that marijuana is not physically addictive. However, there is a thing called mental addiction, which is highly present in weed. (http://www.addict-help.com/marijuana.asp, also see: The Cross and the Switchblade)

Okay, you say, it's mentally addictive just like alcohol, and alcohol is legal, so why shouldn't weed be legal?

We tried to illegalize alcohol back in the 1930s, and it's commonly understood that that was a failure. The reason for that was this: something that people have been doing legally for almost as long as we've been around was now suddenly illegal. Marijuana has never been legal, and thus the use of it is down (I'll get to the use of it being down, give me a second.) If we legalize marijuana, and then see the common problems with it, we'll never be able to reverse course.

Marijuana is also a gateway drug (Cross and the Switchblade, pp. 189-191). And when the cartels are running the legal marijuana operation in Texas, how hard will it be for the guy behind the counter to say "Hey, if you want a real hit, *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* give this stuff a try."?

Now, back to the part about "people only do pot because it's illegal, and illegal is cool." Most people point to Prohibition. See my previous argument for that. If a mentally addictive product that has never been legal before suddenly comes on the market, with cartel drug money behind it, common sense dictates that the kids who were too scared to do it previously will now see it as okay, and the kids who did it because it was cool back then will have to find a new drug, graduating to coke or heroin, or something else that is much more dangerous than pot.

Again, I am not condemning anyone who is for the legalization of marijuana. But you never hear the arguments against legalizing it, only the ones for it. So, I just wanted to get the arguments against this weed out there. I hope this has been helpful to all of you

God Bless America.

SOTU commentary

You didn't really think I'd let the State of the Union pass without some commentary did you? ;)

It is no secret that I disagree with our President on many issues. I do however, pray that he would be given God's wisdom, and not the wisdom of this world...and that he would be replaced by a man who truly honors God.

With that in mind, I have attempted to be respectful here as I disagree with one of the most powerful men in the world. If I did not succeed, I ask your forgiveness.

1. The President wants to "rebuild the middle class."

One stat that you see liberals point to a lot is the 'gap between the rich and the poor'. That is a deceiving stat because, as a countries population gets wealthier, the upper class is obviously going to get richer at a faster rate than the poor. That doesn't mean the poor aren't getting wealthier, they're just doing so more slowly. When President Obama says "rebuild the middle class" what he means is "make everyone the middle class. Total income equality. AKA Socialism.

2. "Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you - America will always win"

Yeah, problem with that. The playing field is not level. Life is not fair, especially when Chinese Communists are involved. Congress can't make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over us, because they have no power over other countries. You want to give the US the advantage? Don't increase the size of the government by adding more letters to the alphabet soup, get out of the way of American business and stop taxing me 40% of my business income.

*Note, four, count 'em, four new federal agencies were created this evening. That is not helping our debt situation, Mr. President

3. Education

"We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen."
"Stephen Hayworth is a high school dropout, with no diploma. He's 17 years old, he's working 20-25 hours a week, and has acquired 36 hours of college credit while his friends at school are struggling to get 3 at a time with their dual-credit classes." (AU readers, insert your name, credits and work schedule and realize how much better off you are compared to high-schoolers). A high-school diploma, or lack thereof, is no guarantee of success. More schooling is not, I repeat not the answer.

4. Government Spending

"In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects."

............................Thank you, Mr. President, for voluntelling me to spend my money. I'll keep my money, and you can keep your construction projects, thanks.

The government like construction projects because they employ a large number of unskilled workers, and make the unemployment stats temporarily go down. The problem is, that once a project is finished, those workers are again unemployed. So, let's find another project to spend our taxpayer's cash on!

5. A smaller government

"I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people."

With all due respect, not a chance in the world, Mr. President. The last thing we need is a government mega-agency that has no bounds to it's authority. No thank you, Mr. President.

God in heaven, I pray for President Barack Obama. I pray that he would come to know you, even while he is in office. I pray that he would make decisions that are honoring to you, and that he would take this country in a direction that You would have us go Father. I pray that Psalm 144 would, in my lifetime, apply to the United States of America. I also pray that President Obama would be replaced this November by a man who honors you, be it Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or Herman Cain, God; I pray that we would elect the right man this time. In your son's name, God, Amen.

God Bless America.

The President's Playbook

I'm currently reading a book entitled "Rules for Radicals"; which was written many, many years ago by a very dangerous man named Saul Alinsky.

In the book this statement is made"The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

"Why do I care?" you ask. "Some political kook wrote a book, Stephen's reading it, blah, blah, blah, it doesn't affect me."

And, that my friends, is where you are wrong. :D

Mr. Alinsky has, in effect, written the playbook for the liberal movement today; which our sitting President follows religiously. In fact, if you read this, and look at some of the things that he, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and some others do, some things may start to click. A brief summary of what I've read so far, followed by a specific example from our President's behavior

1.Example of "Have-Nots Taking From the Haves"

"Joe the Plumber" When Obama was campaigning, he was walking a neighborhood where a plumber was playing football in the front yard with his son. Joe the Plumber looked Senator Obama in the eye and said "Your tax plan is going to take away from my business, isn't it?" Obama replied "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." This is his philosophy, plain and simple

2. Ethics are a luxury

Seriously. According to him, ethics are all well and good, but if you get in a situation where you need to, by all means, go ahead and do something unethical. There is nothing inherently right or wrong, ever. You do what you must do to win.

Example: When the President appoints someone to a position, it is required by the Constitution that the Senate confirm them. . . unless the Senate is not in session. So, when a President wants to appoint someone that he knows the Senate won't like, he merely waits until the Senate is out of session, and then appoints them. He's not the first to do this; but here's the unethical part. When President George W. Bush tried to do this back in the winter of2007-2008, the Senate democrats (which included Senator Obama at the time) invented this thing called a Pro-Forma session, which means that they're not meeting, but they're in session, so recess appointments won't work. This winter, the Senate was left in pro-forma session to keep this same thign from happening. President Obama went ahead and made not one, not two, but four recess appointments anyway, insisting that it's "Not really a session."

3. Make what you say sound good.

It doesn't matter what you say, it just matters that it appeals to people on an emotional level. Don't let them think, because if they think, then they might realize that maybe you're wrong.

Do I really need to go through this? Pretty much every speech he's ever made, especially when he was campaigning. "Hope, Change" etc. All feel-good emotion, no substance.

This is a brief summary (I'm maybe halfway through); but now let's get to the heart of the matter. Go back and re-read the quote at the beginning. Then think about it for a second. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Okay. So, what happens when the Have-Nots take away from the Haves? There are two possible outcomes:

1. The Have-Nots become the Haves.

In this scenario, all that has occurred is that the people who want but don't have have taken away from the people who do have. Theft, really, is what has occurred here.

2. Everybody becomes a Have-Not

There were once two Russian peasants. Both of them have one cow. One of the peasants gets another cow, so he now has two. His neighbor cries out to God. "God help me!" God appears and says: "what do you want me to do?" The peasant replies "Kill the cow". This is basically what happens in this scenario. And how has that helped anybody?

This has been "Politics With Stephen" :)

First Post....Assassinations?

Yes, I, Stephen Hayworth, have started a blog. Partly because I'm tired of giving Teen Ink the rights to all my writing when I publish, but also because I thought it might be fun. Some, but not all, of my posts will be political. Some will just be about random things that happened, and others will be thoughts on life. That said, here is the first post: The Morality and Legality of Assassinations. Enjoy :) comments are encouraged!

Assassinations: Are they ethical, or even legal? This is a question that many people have different answers to (interestingly, the different answers to this question don’t seem to vary by which side of the aisle you stand on).

Second question first (because it’s a lot easier to answer). Are assassinations legal?

According to the Constitution of the United States, the President cannot deploy troops for more than 90 days without the permission of Congress. So, by that logic; if an assassin is sent, he has 90 days to kill whoever he has to kill and get out.

Back in 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905; explicitly banning the US from carrying out assassinations against foreign personnel. So, that’s it, open and shut, right?

Technically, yes. However, since this is an executive order, and not a Congressional mandate, then any sitting President can reverse that Executive Order, whenever they want. However, it would be a rare president that would be willing to deal with the political fallout of saying “Yes, the United States can now assassinate people”. So, by ordering an assassination, they are de facto reversing that Executive Order, without the political stigma.

Also, in Executive Order 12333, Ronald Reagan stipulated that the CIA is the only agency allowed to operate covertly outside the US. So, if assassinations were legal, they would have to be carried out by the CIA.

In conclusion: Assassinations are de facto legal, simply by the fact that Presidents order them. It really is that simple

Now for the first question: Are assassinations ethical? Is it ever morally right to take the life of another human being off the field of battle? How is that not murder?

Murder is wrong; I firmly believe that, and I don’t know of many who’d argue with me. But in America, the government has been given certain powers and responsibilities; and one of those responsibilities is to protect and defend their people from individuals and organizations that have proven to be threats to the security of our nation (Al-Qaida, the PLO, Quds Force, etc). So, if done to protect United States citizens from those who have harmed, and would, given the chance, harm them again, then a state-sanctioned assassination against a foreign citizen is not murder.

If you’re an atheist, and you don’t believe in a higher power; than you must decide for yourself whether assassinations are ethical or not. Logically, you think that there is no higher power that decides right or wrong, so people, whether individually or in groups, decide what is right and what is wrong. Thus, if you say it’s right, it’s right; and if you say it’s wrong, it’s wrong. (Now, the problem comes when one person says something is right and another says it’s wrong…who decides between them?)

I lack both the time and the energy to go through all the different ethical worldviews, but I will give a principle that I think applies to all of them

Who is the person being assassinated? And why are they being assassinated? These questions, no matter what your worldview, do bear directly on the morality of assassinations. Pretend for a second that you’re the President. If someone has done something to take lives of the citizens that you are responsible for; then they have, in effect, declared war on you. Thus, if they are in their backyard, sipping an espresso; and you order a sniper to blow them away; then that is totally inbounds. They declared war on you; they should have had their guard up.

But what about innocents? What if we’re wrong about who we’re assassinating and they’re really not a terrorist? Or what happens if an innocent person gets killed while we’re killing the terrorist?

These two questions have the same answer: It is the responsibility of the people involved in the assassination to make sure that that doesn’t happen. The people ordering the assassination are responsible for making sure that they have the right guy; and both they and the people carrying it out are responsible for making sure that no innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire.

In conclusion: assassinations are both legal and ethical, provided they work within these parameters: 1) The individual being targeted has proven themselves a threat to the United States. 2) The people involved have the right guy. 3) No innocent people are harmed. If an assassination is carried out within those parameters, then it is both legal and ethical.

God bless America.

(If you made it to the end of this, congratulations, give yourself a medal ;) )