The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.  We have plenty of oil right here within the borders of the United States. The report was an updated one to the old 1995 version on how much oil was in the area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana known as the “Bakken”.    The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since  Alaska ’s  Prudhoe Bay and has the potential to eliminate all American 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 $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.. “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…

The problem is the environmentalists won’t let us drill for it and the foreign oil producers don’t want us to access it either.  Whose side are they on – the terrorists?  Hmmm….

Update: the US Geological Service report referenced above refers to 3.65 billion barrels of recoverable oil —not 503 billion…

Republican senator George LeMieux of Florida was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Mel Martinez, who resigned. His analysis shows that ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO BALANCE THE BUDGET is go back to 2007 spending levels!  It’s a no-brainer!  But not for idiots who buy votes for a living.

If government spending were reduced to its 2007 level, we’d have a balanced budget (with a $163 billion surplus). Returning to the 2008 level of spending, the budget would be balanced in 2014 (a $133 billion surplus). And in both cases, that’s while keeping the Bush tax cuts across the board and indexing the loathed alternative minimum tax for inflation.

“Could we live with what we did in 2007?” LeMieux asks—the “we” a collective reference to Congress, the federal government, and the country. He thinks so. Because of the recession, “most Americans are living with less than they had in 2007.”

Trillion dollar deficits or a balanced budget?  Ask your president why…

A 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon…From the looks of Obama’s new budget, the plan to take over the United States hasn’t changed:

In the president’s SOTU last night, he said regarding health care:

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Here is a simple approach that will work:

• A. ELIMINATE ALL EMPLOYER PAID HEALTH INSURANCE and group rates
• B. ELIMINATE ALL INTERSTATE OBSTRUCTIONS TO SALE OF HEALTH INSURANCE
• C. CAP MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS
• D. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.

Part A. will:

• because all workers will be required to pay for 100% of their insurance out of their own pocket, they will have shop and negotiate for the lowest insurance rates.
• remove the disparity between what the self employed pay for insurance and what regular, previously employer-subsidized workers pay.
• Just as self-employed workers presently do, to keep their insurance premiums low, all workers will negotiate larger deductibles, giving them a strong incentive to question and negotiate the charges of their healthcare providers…driving down costs.

Part B. will:

• remove in-state and regional  monoplies of insurance companies … increasing competition and driving down rates.

Part C. will:

• drive down the cost of insurance since legal fees that need to be paid by that insurance will be less.

Part D. will:

• make health care providers have to reduce the charges for their services because they have to compete for business with more providers.

This 4 point approach will accomplish the goals the president outlined, but it requires real change, the kind of change that Mr. Obama’s special interest backers (like unions and banksters) will not support.  McCain had a proposal in his campaign to tax the employer paid part of health insurance, but the special interests and Mr. Obama shouted it down.  McCain ran a poor campaign and deserved to lose, but this proposal was on the right track.  Too bad,  Obama’s offer for real change is a farce…

Bill Freeza suggests now is the time for a new third party to focus the anger of the American people into the really needed action – voting bums from both parties out of office. We agree.  As a practical matter the new party platform must be created in such a way that new membership in the new party is drawn equally from both republicans and dems.  In this way the new party does not serve to cause one of the old parties to win – but, rather causes both old parities to loose!  We posted on this previously… Lincoln was one of the first to join the new Republican party in the 1840s. Membership in the new Republican party consisted first of disaffected and demoralized Whigs.  But soon the ranks swelled equally from democrats who also hated what their old party had become.  It’s an ideal time to relegate both parties to the bone yard since their leaderships are equally owned by the banksters.  It’s all in the platform, that we agree on…If we craft the right platform the existing parties’ corruption will be given their walking papers.

A female Democratic lawmaker in footage released Sunday said Congress could pass healthcare if female lawmakers “sent the men home.”

“We go to the ladies room and the Republican women and the Democratic women and we just roll our eyes,” she said. “And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the healthcare bill, if we sent the men home…” at which point she was interrupted by loud applause.

“You know why? I’m not trying to diss the men but I’m telling you it’s the truth that every single woman there has been responsible for taking care of a [relatives] and so we think we can find a common ground there,” she said.

Boy, they sure are getting desperate.

Simon Jonson has suggested that (ultra liberal inflationist and debt multiplier) Paul Krugman be made Fed Chairman – instead of the bankster Bernanke.  Bernanke definitely needs to go …but to replace him with Krugman?  Simon Johnson has gone nuts and his sidekick Kwak has such a liberal political bias that it gets in the way of economic common sense.  Even Krugman says it’s a crazy idea. The guy just fell several notches in credibility advocating that sort of dribble…

Much cyber ink has been used lately predicting significant house and senate seat losses for the Democrats in the 2010 elections.  But a piece in American Thinker points out that Dems can’t be voted out if they control the election process through vote buying and other corruption.  Giving the vote to millions of illegal aliens in return for keeping them in power is a very real and sinister plan that explains why the Dems are not so worried…

From  firedoglake.com

For almost the entirety of the health care debate, the Obama Administration has relied on economist Jonathan Gruber to make the public case for its idea of reform – even the most unpopular parts. But as Firedoglake revealed on Friday, the Obama Administration has failed to disclose that it paid the same economist more than $780,000. Jonathan Gruber’s work has been cited by the White House, Members of Congress, and countless media outlets, but not once did the Obama Administration disclose it was paying him more than $780,000 in tax dollars.  This is a huge ethical violation that undermines the entirety of health care reform.

Once we broke this scandal, The New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, and other publications all said they should have disclosed Gruber’s lucrative contracts if they were aware of the conflict of interest. Dozens of Members of Congress cited Gruber’s work in their floor speeches. The White House pushed Gruber hundreds of times to the press and on its website.  While Gruber’s ethical lapses are his own personal and professional issue, the true problem here is that the White House used Gruber and his research as a seemingly unbiased source in support of its unpopular reforms. When Obama wanted to tax middle class health care plans, Gruber defended the tax. When Obama wanted to force people to buy private insurance, Gruber defended the individual mandate. When Obama did not want a public option, Gruber said a public option was not important. When Obama needed to pretend the bill had cost controls, Gruber said it had the greatest cost controls ever. It is simply not right for the White House to cite Gruber’s analysis to illustrate the benefits of the bill they support without disclosing that Gruber is on the government payroll. A biased insider can’t be an unbiased outside observer. But that’s exactly the approach of the Obama Administration, to the tune of $780,000 in tax dollars.

The Obama Administation’s $780,000 “buy-an-economist” scandal threatens to shake the foundation of health care reform. We need to get to the bottom of this.

Sign our petition to Obama: come clean on tax dollars used to pay any other undisclosed contracts.

http://action.firedoglake.com/gruber

Where there is smoke- there’s fire. Where there is obfuscation – there is something to hide.  Bloomberg’s effort to make the FED disclose firms benefiting from the bailouts is being dragged out by the guilty FED and its chief, Ben Bernanke.   This is why we need to pass Paul’s Audit the FED bill post haste.  We need to know what’s going on with the FED.