My neighbor, Clayton, has forwarded this email about the discovery of 3 to 4.3 billion of barrels of oil in North Dakota, 25 times a 1999 estimate. Note that the USGS says 3 to 4.3 billion barrels but the e-mail says 500 billion barrels. If someone called me an oil man, I would have to disagree, but 3 billion is a long way from 500 billion. The e-mail goes on to cite the Stansberry report that claims a 2 trillion barrel discovery in the Rocky Mountains:
"Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world — more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. Three companies have been chosen to lead the way. Test drilling has already begun..."
This claim is based on the region's deposits of large amounts of oil shale, the extraction of which is still experimental. Stansberry states:
"Companies are coming up with ways to extract oil from the Green River Formation very cheaply."
However, the run-up in oil prices to $147/barrel occurred after this was known. Therefore, the markets don't seem to be taking it seriously. Or are they?
According to the USGS:
"The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil."
Clayton's e-mail suggests that the Democrats have been blocking recovery of the shale oil, forcing up gasoline prices.
THINK ABOUT THIS THE NEXT TIME YOU FILL UP AT THE GAS STATION.
>You don't & won't see this on any of your nightly news casts. This IS news! Why do you think they won't report it?
>http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oilmen knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:
>The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all America an dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at only $50 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $2.5 trillion. Gasoline would be less than $2.00 a gallon for the rest of yur life.
>'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
>'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U.S.oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now have access of
up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should because it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people!
U.S.Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005President Bush mandated its extraction.
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
-8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
-18-times as much oil a s Iraq
-21-times as much oil as Kuwait
-22-times as much oil as Iran
-500-times as much oil as Yemen - and it's all right here in the Western United States.
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this!? Because thedemocrats, environmentalists and left wing republicans have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil.
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it ... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:
Pass this along.. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain.
And, which politicians were saying "...drilling for oil in the U.S. would just be a waste of time... "and "...why don't the oil companies start drilling on the land they already have under lease options..??"
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one sent this to every one in your address book.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Peter Paul and the Langbert Modus Ponens
Contrairimairi sent me this video about Hillary Clinton's connection to Marvel comic book writer Stan Lee and entrepreneur Peter Paul. Paul had recruited Bill Clinton to raise capital for his start-up comic book company that employed Marvel's legendary Stan Lee.
Peter Paul says that "my interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton" to help him raise money for his start up. But Peter Paul had a felony record. Upon learning of Paul's felony conviction, the Clinton's washed their hands of him and denied that they knew him. Peter Paul's representative claims that the Clintons aimed to steal Peter Paul's Japanese business partner. The Paul company collapsed as a result, and the Clintons then attempted to start an identical company sans Paul. Paul's representatives claim that the Clintons took $2 million from Paul and then denied that they took the money from him, the largest election fraud in American history. In turn, states Paul, Interpol imprisoned him in a dangerous Brazilian prison, claiming SEC violations. Paul claims that the Clintons then threw out Paul's civil suit on the basis that he was a fugitive. David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's chief fundraiser, was arrested as part of the case. A Clinton-appointed judge instructed the jury not to tie in the Clintons to Paul's case. If true, this is corruption at the highest level, calling into question the integrity of the American judicial system. Paul claims that what he calls "the media" (what a laugh) have abrogated their responsibilities with respect to the Clintons in this case, and more generally with respect to political reporting.
Please recall the Langbert modus:
If a nation lacks a fair and competent media, it cannot function as a republic.
America lacks a fair and competent media.
Therefore, America is no longer a republic.
Peter Paul says that "my interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton" to help him raise money for his start up. But Peter Paul had a felony record. Upon learning of Paul's felony conviction, the Clinton's washed their hands of him and denied that they knew him. Peter Paul's representative claims that the Clintons aimed to steal Peter Paul's Japanese business partner. The Paul company collapsed as a result, and the Clintons then attempted to start an identical company sans Paul. Paul's representatives claim that the Clintons took $2 million from Paul and then denied that they took the money from him, the largest election fraud in American history. In turn, states Paul, Interpol imprisoned him in a dangerous Brazilian prison, claiming SEC violations. Paul claims that the Clintons then threw out Paul's civil suit on the basis that he was a fugitive. David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's chief fundraiser, was arrested as part of the case. A Clinton-appointed judge instructed the jury not to tie in the Clintons to Paul's case. If true, this is corruption at the highest level, calling into question the integrity of the American judicial system. Paul claims that what he calls "the media" (what a laugh) have abrogated their responsibilities with respect to the Clintons in this case, and more generally with respect to political reporting.
Please recall the Langbert modus:
If a nation lacks a fair and competent media, it cannot function as a republic.
America lacks a fair and competent media.
Therefore, America is no longer a republic.
Propagandists Duck Emanuel Resignation--and the Langbert Modus Ponens
The Patriot Room (h/t Larwyn) asks why the New York Times and LA times have not covered pressure put on Rahm Emanuel to resign:
>"Have we seen anything in the MSM about pressure on Rahm Emanuel to resign? Nothing from the L.A. Times. Or the New York Times.
"But the U.K. and Australian papers often print stories their liberal American cousins will not. And they think something is afoot."
Patriot Room quotes the Australian Herald Sun and UK Times, which are willing to print news, even if it doesn't fit.
Patriot Room concludes:
"Obama’s team was dredged from the same swamp from which Blagojevich was pulled. Is it any surprise that Emanuel was on the phone wheeling and dealing with Blago to fill the Senate seat?"
Back on September 25 I posted this comment about Obama's corruption from one of my correspondents in Chicago, Contrairimairi:
"What is it going to take to prove that Obama does not now, did not then, and NEVER will have America or Americans best interests at heart? This apparent liar and 'rip-off artist extraordinaire' has ALWAYS put himself first in EVERYTHING he has undertaken. It appears he was lining his pockets within MOMENTS of landing in Washington as the junior Senator from Illinois from the very companies he now 'pretends' to be so 'outraged' about. Not too surprising considering his contacts with Tony Rezko...
"One HAS to wonder WHERE all the money from the millions 'earmarked' to improve public housing in Chicago ended up...where the millions 'earmarked' to improve education in Chicago's poorest schools ended up...WHY, despite his continuing 'efforts' as a 'community organizer' on Chicago's south side, NOTHING in those neighborhoods seems to have significantly improved. Probably, it would be safer to say that things have probably grown WORSE! More young people die in those neighborhoods than have been lost in similar time frames in the war. Housing in those areas remains sub-standard and dangerous. The peoples' quality of life in those areas NEVER seems to improve. I think we can tell from the trail we ARE able to pick up on, despite Obama's efforts to 'hide everything from his past', that he never does ANYTHING without major benefit to himself."
Back in August I called President-elect Obama a sociopath (also see here) and back on September 2 quoted Andy Martin's characterizations of Obama's dirty operation as being "more sophisticated than that of President Richard M. Nixon's."
Perhaps we should argue, as the esteemed David Horowitz recently has, that we are better off with a corrupt Obama than an ideologically-driven one.
But the deeper problem to which Patriot Room alludes is the absence of a competent press or media. This is the Langbert Modus Ponens:
If a nation lacks a fair and competent press and media, it cannot function as a republic.
America lacks a fair and competent press and media.
Therefore, America is no longer a republic.
>"Have we seen anything in the MSM about pressure on Rahm Emanuel to resign? Nothing from the L.A. Times. Or the New York Times.
"But the U.K. and Australian papers often print stories their liberal American cousins will not. And they think something is afoot."
Patriot Room quotes the Australian Herald Sun and UK Times, which are willing to print news, even if it doesn't fit.
Patriot Room concludes:
"Obama’s team was dredged from the same swamp from which Blagojevich was pulled. Is it any surprise that Emanuel was on the phone wheeling and dealing with Blago to fill the Senate seat?"
Back on September 25 I posted this comment about Obama's corruption from one of my correspondents in Chicago, Contrairimairi:
"What is it going to take to prove that Obama does not now, did not then, and NEVER will have America or Americans best interests at heart? This apparent liar and 'rip-off artist extraordinaire' has ALWAYS put himself first in EVERYTHING he has undertaken. It appears he was lining his pockets within MOMENTS of landing in Washington as the junior Senator from Illinois from the very companies he now 'pretends' to be so 'outraged' about. Not too surprising considering his contacts with Tony Rezko...
"One HAS to wonder WHERE all the money from the millions 'earmarked' to improve public housing in Chicago ended up...where the millions 'earmarked' to improve education in Chicago's poorest schools ended up...WHY, despite his continuing 'efforts' as a 'community organizer' on Chicago's south side, NOTHING in those neighborhoods seems to have significantly improved. Probably, it would be safer to say that things have probably grown WORSE! More young people die in those neighborhoods than have been lost in similar time frames in the war. Housing in those areas remains sub-standard and dangerous. The peoples' quality of life in those areas NEVER seems to improve. I think we can tell from the trail we ARE able to pick up on, despite Obama's efforts to 'hide everything from his past', that he never does ANYTHING without major benefit to himself."
Back in August I called President-elect Obama a sociopath (also see here) and back on September 2 quoted Andy Martin's characterizations of Obama's dirty operation as being "more sophisticated than that of President Richard M. Nixon's."
Perhaps we should argue, as the esteemed David Horowitz recently has, that we are better off with a corrupt Obama than an ideologically-driven one.
But the deeper problem to which Patriot Room alludes is the absence of a competent press or media. This is the Langbert Modus Ponens:
If a nation lacks a fair and competent press and media, it cannot function as a republic.
America lacks a fair and competent press and media.
Therefore, America is no longer a republic.
Fred on the Certificate
I just received this e-mail from Fred:
>I was reading your blog, "Why Was Sarah Herilihy Worrying About Article II?" and I would like to add a dot that you might find interesting.
I think it might shed some light on what we see going on with the court cases that have reached the SC.
Justice Scalia made a talk followed by a Q&A session to The Federalist Society on November 20, 2008 so it is very current.
Here is the link:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp
The talk is available at that site in video or audio only. I have a fast server, but the video kept stopping to catch up so I recommend listening to the audio as it is continuous.
I think that Justice Scalia defines himself as an "originalist".
During the Q&A time, Justice Scalia commented on what to do about laws that were on the books at the time the Constitution was written but would not be acceptable today. He referenced "notching the ears" of felons as a means to identify them (I never knew we did that). He spent time discussing that "good" Judges would uphold laws that were constitutional even though they did not agree with them.
He specifically stated that "good Judges" should have a rubber stamp to handle those cases.
The stamp would read, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL".
When he made that statement, I believe he was thinking of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. Perhaps he doesn't agree with it , but it is not open to interpretation. Justice Alito had a conversation with Schumer during his confirmation hearing and said that an Amendment was required, but would not discuss whether a child born on U.S. soil of parents that were illegals was entitled to citizenship.
Of the cases that have reached the SC, Berg's was denied based on "Standing", Donofrio's on Jurisdiction, and Cort's was denied without comment.
Is it possible that the SCOTUS is dodging the issue?
I believe that they all, if they are "good" Justices would, since the wording is not ambiguous and the nature and reason for the clause is clearly defined by Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have to rule that the only thing that could alter the "natural born" statement in the Constitution is an Amendment to the Constitution.
The significant problem with Obama's eligibility is that most Senators and Representatives, the voters on January 8 to certify him to be President of the United States, believe that being born on U.S. soil entitles Obama to be proclaimed "Natural Born". It does not! And Obama does not qualify since his father was a British subject "at birth" of Obama (it is on his website) and the very thing that John Jay worried about that motivated him to suggest the wording in Article II, Section I has come upon us! And for good reason!
Fred
>I was reading your blog, "Why Was Sarah Herilihy Worrying About Article II?" and I would like to add a dot that you might find interesting.
I think it might shed some light on what we see going on with the court cases that have reached the SC.
Justice Scalia made a talk followed by a Q&A session to The Federalist Society on November 20, 2008 so it is very current.
Here is the link:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp
The talk is available at that site in video or audio only. I have a fast server, but the video kept stopping to catch up so I recommend listening to the audio as it is continuous.
I think that Justice Scalia defines himself as an "originalist".
During the Q&A time, Justice Scalia commented on what to do about laws that were on the books at the time the Constitution was written but would not be acceptable today. He referenced "notching the ears" of felons as a means to identify them (I never knew we did that). He spent time discussing that "good" Judges would uphold laws that were constitutional even though they did not agree with them.
He specifically stated that "good Judges" should have a rubber stamp to handle those cases.
The stamp would read, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL".
When he made that statement, I believe he was thinking of Article II, Section I, Clause 5. Perhaps he doesn't agree with it , but it is not open to interpretation. Justice Alito had a conversation with Schumer during his confirmation hearing and said that an Amendment was required, but would not discuss whether a child born on U.S. soil of parents that were illegals was entitled to citizenship.
Of the cases that have reached the SC, Berg's was denied based on "Standing", Donofrio's on Jurisdiction, and Cort's was denied without comment.
Is it possible that the SCOTUS is dodging the issue?
I believe that they all, if they are "good" Justices would, since the wording is not ambiguous and the nature and reason for the clause is clearly defined by Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have to rule that the only thing that could alter the "natural born" statement in the Constitution is an Amendment to the Constitution.
The significant problem with Obama's eligibility is that most Senators and Representatives, the voters on January 8 to certify him to be President of the United States, believe that being born on U.S. soil entitles Obama to be proclaimed "Natural Born". It does not! And Obama does not qualify since his father was a British subject "at birth" of Obama (it is on his website) and the very thing that John Jay worried about that motivated him to suggest the wording in Article II, Section I has come upon us! And for good reason!
Fred
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
