http://www.bloomberg.com/…

U.S. presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama each deserve credit for a breakthrough in talks on a $700 billion plan to revive the credit markets, their advisers said today.

Republican McCain worked with party members in the House to achieve plan changes such as government insurance of mortgage- backed securities and a phase-in of federal aid, Senator Lindsey Graham said on the “Fox News Sunday” television program.

“The fact is the House Republicans were not in the mix at all” until McCain arrived at the talks, said Graham, a South Carolina Republican. McCain “was decisive in regards to the House being involved.”

Senator John Kerry, an Obama adviser, disagreed. McCain said “he was going to interrupt his campaign to come down and save the negotiations,” according to the Massachusetts Democrat. “What he did was interrupt the negotiations to come down and save his campaign.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said in a CNN interview today that McCain’s trip was “a political stunt” that “delayed and slowed down this process.”

Obama was supportive of negotiations in a “mild” and constructive” way by calling in over eight or nine days of talks, said Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

If they want to take credit I’m happy to give it to them. When the depression comes I just hope whichever clown is in office will take the blaim.

I don’t know how this slipped through the libertarian blogosphere but this is pretty hardcore. Looks like it was on 3/13/2008 and the blog is from 6/15/2008.

http://politicalinquirer.com/…

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt
http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

And as other sovereignty issues arise like with Real ID hopefully the states can exert enough pressure to cripple the federal government. At least slow its march toward total national control.

http://ap.google.com/

SEATTLE (AP) - Timothy Garon’s face and arms are hauntingly skeletal, but the fluid building up in his abdomen makes the 56-year-old musician look eight months pregnant.

His liver, ravaged by hepatitis C, is failing. Without a new one, his doctors tell him, he will be dead in days.

But Garon’s been refused a spot on the transplant list, largely because he has used marijuana, even though it was legally approved for medical reasons.

“I’m not angry, I’m not mad, I’m just confused,” said Garon, lying in his hospital bed a few minutes after a doctor told him the hospital transplant committee’s decision Thursday.

With the scarcity of donated organs, transplant committees like the one at the University of Washington Medical Center use tough standards, including whether the candidate has other serious health problems or is likely to drink or do drugs.

And with cases like Garon’s, they also have to consider - as a dozen states now have medical marijuana laws - if using dope with a doctor’s blessing should be held against a dying patient in need of a transplant.

Most transplant centers struggle with the how to deal with people who have used marijuana, said Dr. Robert Sade, director of the Institute of Human Values in Health Care at the Medical University of South Carolina.

It takes about 14 years (on the high-end) to become a doctor:

• 4-5 years of college
• 4 years of medical school
• 3-5 years of residency
• x years (if you specialize)

It’s also not uncommon for doctors to begin their practice with over $100,000 in student loans and other indebtedness.

That being said, I’d like to think that with all that time and money invested, these “doctors” would know better.
Of course not. Instead we get ignorant statements like these:

“Marijuana, unlike alcohol, has no direct effect on the liver. It is however a concern … in that it’s a potential indicator of an addictive personality,” Sade said.

“The concern is that patients who have been using it will not be able to stop,” Reyes said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347751,00.html

Enacting city smoking bans appears to increase drunken driving, according to a new national study of arrests by Wisconsin researchers.

Fatal accidents involving alcohol increased after communities banned public smoking, the study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found. The authors attributed the increase to people driving farther to drink, either to a place with an outdoor smoking area or a city without a ban.

“The increased miles driven by drivers who wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.

The researchers, Scott Adams, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, said they were surprised by the results.

“We thought we would see a reduction,” Adams said. “Our first thought was, ‘Throw it away, it must be wrong.’”

But it wasn’t, he said.

Be sure to read the title in your best Strong Bad voice. Add a “HAHA” before and/or after. What is so hard to believe an action can have unforeseen consequences? Something is going to change when you forcibly alter peoples behavior. Not smoking means more time to drink. It may mean driving further to drink. It may even cause a drop in hook ups from the loss in “Do you have a light?” pickup lines.

Any researcher whose first reaction is “Throw it away, it must be wrong.” has no credibility in my opinion. I’ll need to make a note of questioning anything out of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

http://www.govtrack.us/…

To protect seniors from identity theft and strengthen our national security by providing for the issuance of a secure Social Security card.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Social Security Identity Theft Prevention Act’.

SEC. 2. UPDATED AND SECURE SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS.

(a) In General- Section 205(c)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(G)) is amended–

(1) by inserting `(i)’ after `(G)’;

(2) in the last sentence, by striking `shall be made of banknote paper, and’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new clauses:

`(ii) A social security card issued pursuant to clause (i) of this subparagraph to an individual described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall–

`(I) be made of tamperproof and wear-resistant material;

`(II) have clearly marked on its face the name and social security account number of the individual to whom the card is issued;

`(III) in the case of a card issued to an individual after attaining age 16, display a digital image, captured directly by an officer or employee of the Social Security Administration acting in his or her official capacity, of the person to whom the social security account number was issued and the date on which that image was captured; and

`(IV) contain an encrypted, machine-readable electronic record which shall include records of biometric identifiers unique to the individual to whom the card is issued, including a copy of any digitized facial image printed on the face of the card pursuant to subclause (III).

Here is a video about it. I recommend contacting your congressman and letting them know we don’t need the Real ID under a new name.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/…

Unless a police officer is dutifully enforcing a legitimate warrant, or has unassailable probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a felony, he has no business attempting to arrest anybody. That was the understanding that prevailed in the Anglo-Saxon world, in one form or another, from 1215 until the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, at least here in the United States.Fifty years ago, the statutes of nearly every state recognized the right to resist unlawful arrest. Today, it is recognized only Michigan, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi.* The question has been examined, and upheld in remarkably candid terms by courts in Mississippi. This is ironic, given that Mississippi is the same state where Cory Maye was convicted of first degree murder for killing a police officer who invaded Maye’s home in a late-night paramilitary raid at the wrong address.

A 1963 Mississippi Supreme Court decision (King v. State) favorably cited a legal scholar’s conclusion that “the right of personal liberty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, and any unlawful interference may be resisted. Every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest; and, in preventing such illegal restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.”

Not quite four decades earlier, a judge presiding over the criminal trial of a police officer accused of murdering a man who resisted arrest underscored the fact that a citizen has the right to kill a police officer attempting to arrest him without probable cause or a valid warrant. The judge instructed the jury that if the officer had been attempting an illegal arrest, the defendant was permitted to employ “whatever force was necessary to avoid the arrest, even to the extent of taking the life of [the] defendant.”

In other words: A police officer who kills a civilian in the course of an unlawful arrest is a murderer; a citizen who kills a police officer when threatened with lethal violence in the course of an unlawful arrest is exercising his innate right to self-defense.

Like jury nullification the right to resist unlawful arrest is something simply not talked about by those in power and generally not know by the public. It’s something which as our nation moves closer and closer to a police state needs to be taught to others in an attempt to counteract some of the government’s abuses.