I Have A "Dissenting Opinion" For This Comment From Justice Breyer

I would like to say a few words about this comment from the dissenting opinion that Justice Breyer wrote:

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence,"

Well that certainly makes since. Let me try some:

If you drive a car you can do it safely, or you can drive 120 miles while drunk. Let's ban cars.

If you have a fork in your house you can use it to eat, or you can poke your eye out with it.

If you have some pain medication you could take it for your bad back (republicans - the one from working too hard, democrats - the one you got from taking a few too many of those pills the night before and falling down the stairs), or you could use them to commit suicide. Let's ban pain medicine.

If you have a baseball bat you could have some fun out in the yard with the kids, or you could settle a dispute with your neighbor. Let's ban baseball bats.

A couple more for any lefty troll that might roam through:

You have a Constitution. You could read it or you can continue to shut one, squint the other and make it read any damn way you want. Let's ban the Constitution.

You have a brain. You could try using it, or you could just keep voting democrat. I would say let's ban brains, but there are so few people using them no one would notice.

A Few Quick Questions

The questions are in response to this article:

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate now supporting Barack Obama, said Sunday John McCain's military service does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.

Underscoring during a national television appearance a position he has been expressing for several weeks, Clark said performing heroic military service is not a substitute for gaining command experience.

Why would this not be more of a qualifying factor than the things Obama has done?

Can it not be said that McCain's actions prove a genuine love of this country?

Which is better, McCain serving this country or Obama attending an anti-American church for twenty years?

I am not a big McCain supporter either. As a matter of fact, a lot of the things he supports are things I completely disagree with. As of right now I will not be voting for either. I must admit though, the fact that not voting for McCain is like voting for Obama is weighing on my mind. McCain is the ultimate RINO. That makes it almost impossible for me to vote for him. Notice I said almost. Obama is the ultimate socialist. That may be enough for me to overcome that "almost impossible" thing.

I would like to leave you with this message for the RNC:

Clean up your act. As much as you admire the way the democratic base rallies around their nominees, you DO NOT share the same type of fortune. Sure there are a large number of them that will, but there is also a significant amount of us that will not. Myself, and a large number of others are disgruntled enough to live through 4 or 8 years of democratic reign in order to force the party to awaken to the fact that we are not willing to accept that the party is moving to the left at a rapid pace. I may vote for McCain. McCain has not one thing to do with this. I will tell you another thing; you are lucky the democrats nominated such a "far left" candidate. There were two democratic candidates that could have made me consider voting for McCain. Obama is definitely one of those two. You have already lost any chance of monetary support from me. You may have lost my vote as well.

What Did Congressman Delahunt (MA-10) Mean By This?

Delahunt's comments were not "taken out of context" or misunderstood. There can be only one explanation for this comment. Mr. Addington is Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, therefor he must be evil. Congressman Delahunt is glad they drug him into these hearings. He is happy that the enemy of this country has had a chance to put a face on one of their adversaries. This is deplorable and should not be tolerated.

More can be found hear.

Contact Delahunt's office and let him know your opinion on this. His phone number is 202-224-3121 and his e-mail is william.delahunt@mail.house.gov.

Let The Fun Begin, Lawsuit Filed Against Chicago Handgun Ban

Suit filed within 15 minutes of ruling:

The U.S. Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, and the ruling will likely invalidate the 26-year-old ban on handguns in the City of Chicago.

In fact, the Illinois State Rifle Association has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago ban. They filed the suit within 15 minutes of the high court's ruling.

The NRA plans to do the same:

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Could be an interesting few years for the courts.

By the way, could someone tell me what the hell this quote from Chicago's mayor Richard M. Daley means? I don't know if it is just me or if it makes no sense at all:

"It is frightening that America loves guns," the mayor said, "and to me, I think this decision really places those who are rich and those are in power, they'll always feel safe. Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying. If you're elected officials, you feel safe. You cannot carry a gun into a federal building. You cannot carry a gun into a federal court. So they're setting themselves aside, and really, they're saying to the rest of America that the answer to all the constitutional issues is that we can carry guns. And I just don't understand how they came to this thinking."

Thank you.

Kudlow Talks Oil With Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin

The video:



Watch it. This is some good stuff.

Best Lines Of Justice Scalia's Opinion

First off, let us start with the best line of any document to come from the government of this country. It is the reason we have been able to keep the rest of the rights we possess:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Now for the ruling:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

...the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

A good day indeed.

Read it all here.

Second Amendment Affirmed

The supreme Court affirmed the individual's right to keep and bear arms today. Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. It can be found here. I am going to take a while to review it and then give my opinion. Check back later for that.

No Death Penalty For Child Rapists

From Human Events:

The Supreme Court today ruled that executing child rapists violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

No surprise. Although, I personally believe anyone raping a child under ten deserves to be put to death.

Alaska's Governor Asks Reid To Drill ANWR

Governor Sarah Palin wants Congress to allow drilling in Alaska and on the Outer Continental Shelf:

In a letter to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other key leaders, Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin urges Congress to allow drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska, an area she calls "the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America."

"What will it take for Congress to enact comprehensive energy policy?" Palin asks in the letter, dated yesterday. "In my opinion, the debate about energy policy is no longer theoretical and abstract. Our failure to enact an energy policy is having real consequences for every American in their daily lives and has begun to affect America's place in the world."

Of course, the democrats want to fix the problem by raising taxes or imposing a windfall profits tax. Either of which would only make prices go up significantly.

how much of ANWR are we talking about you ask?:

Palin addresses the concerns of environmentalists about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR.

Oil exploration and development "can be conducted in a safe manner," she writes, pointing out the footprint of oil development facilities in ANWR would take up "less than 2,000 acres" of a refuge roughly the size of South Carolina.

South Carolina has 19,270,000 acres. That is less than 1% of the total area of ANWR.

As a disclaimer I would like to say a few things about this notion that people who support drilling in ANWR, as well as any other place oil is found, hate nature. I do not want to see this countries many beautiful areas destroyed. Too many people in this country think that just because I want to drill oil in places like this, I do not care about the environment. They could not be more wrong. I love nature. I am an avid hunter and fisherman. So I guess I hate animals and fish. Wrong again. I do not want to see land destroyed. I want clean, safe waters. As a matter of fact I believe that I do more for these things than most. I spend more than $300 a year on hunting and fishing licenses. That money is used to develop healthier populations of animals and the restocking of fish. It goes to run fisheries. It goes to plant and maintain food crops. And the list could go on and on.

I don't think drilling for oil in an area roughly the size of my small hometown in an area the size of South Carolina is going to effect the animals as much as people think. The people that talk about the poor, poor animals could not have spent much time around these animals. Too many people think that animals are weak defenseless creatures that must be protected by man. Once again they are wrong. Animals are extremely resilient and capable of adapting to almost anything they encounter. Suppose we put a drilling facility right in the path the caribou use to travel through the area. What do you suppose they are going to do? Are they going to just stop and stand around, waiting to starve to death? No, they will walk around. It may slow them down a half a day or so, but they will go around.

DRILL NOW

Rep. McCotter Tells It Like It Is, Slams Democrats

This video is great:




It is nice to see a member of the House with enough courage to do something like that.

Congratulations Rep. Thaddeus McCotter.

H/T: Maggie's Notebook

Supreme Court To Rule On The Second Amendment, Possibly tomorrow

And it looks like good news:

...Scalia and Thomas are evidently already on record as supporting an individual rights reading of the Amendment, and from what observers could tell from the oral argument back in March, Anthony Kennedy was himself leaning that way. The decision should drop tomorrow morning so take advantage of the slow news this afternoon and read Mike O’Shea’s primer at Concurring Opinions to prepare yourself...

Open Debate, Liberal Style

The libs are always throwing up the term "free and open debate". I am not against that as long as that is what it is. Unfortunately, libs have a different definition of it:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

I do not think the oil execs are "blurring the lines" on Climate Change. I think the lines were pretty damn blurry to begin with. They are just bringing it to people's attention.

OK, I will admit that 30 or 40 billion in profits does sound high. But their profit margin is only around 8% and that is lower than many businesses that provide essential products. Over 70% of that money is re-invested in exploration and advanced technologies.

Back to the subject of the post. The liberal perception that an open debate is only allowed if the participants agree with them. Here this guy (Al Gore's science advisor) is accusing the execs of "high crimes against humanity and nature" for expressing opinions that he does not agree with. The reason the execs are doing it may be for personal reasons. But could it not be said that Al Gore is doing the same thing? Somebody has to pay the energy bill at Al's house you know.

If this were the only subject that the libs were doing this on it would be different. If you don't agree with entitlements, these people are not interesting in finding out why. You hate the poor and should be shot. If you do not agree with abortion, then you hate the poor women that have them and you should be shot. If you do not agree with affirmative action, then you are a racist and should be shot. If you believe in the second amendment, then you are a murdering criminal and you should be sh.. oh I mean stabbed. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

People like this are not interested in hearing different opinions. They are not even interested in the truth. They are interested in their own agendas, period. If your beliefs are different than theirs, you are either stupid, ignorant, or just plain evil.

The scariest thing about the way liberals use this tactic is that it seems to be working out great for them. We have two presidential contenders now. One is the most liberal Senator in Washington. The other is a RINO that seems to be more comfortable when he is in line with the liberal agenda.

If you don't believe me, the next time you run into a liberal friend that wants to engage in an "honest and open debate", give him one. Go ahead, see what happens.

Well, He Deals With "Vibrations"

Remember Dr. Thomas Chalko? He's the scientist that provided us with the scientific report claiming that earthquakes are increasing due to, you guessed it Global Warming. Get a load of this:

Chalko is best described as a pseudo-scientist--at least when it comes to the fields of global warming and earthquakes about which he was quoted by CBS and MSNBC as an authority. He is not a meteorologist. Nor is he a geophysicist or seismologist. His website reveals that he is into "self healing," "vibrations," and alien visitations...

You would think that CBS and MSNBC might want to check into his background a little, right? Wrong:

...I decided to perform Google and Yahoo searches of the "scientist" who had issued the finding, one Thomas Chalko, MSc, Ph.D. In less than five minutes I found that Chalko was perhaps the last person who should be quoted on the purported impact of allegedly man-caused global warming.

It is amazing how the MSM reacts when given any story about Global Warming/Climate Change.
No research involved. Given this guy's credentials, you may as well have asked the local palm reader to give you a detailed explanation of Global Warming.

Is Israel Preparing An Attack On Iran's Nuclear Facilities?

U.S officials think so:

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

Israeli officials claim it was routine training. But, the article goes on to say:

...the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies.

Was Israel training for an attack on Iran? If they were smart they would. Check out my last post for a perfectly good reason for it.

One official thinks it's purpose was to send a message to other countries that Iran will act militarily if needed. I would hope so. The Iranian government has expressed their desire to "wipe Israel off the map" dozens of times. Nobody can dispute that fact. I just wish the rest of the world were as concerned about Iran gaining nuclear capabilities as Israel seems to be. While it is true that Israel would probably be the first to be attacked, they would not be the only country that gets attacked.

One more thing I would like to discuss about the article:

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

"They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard," a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Iran being nervous about this is a good reaction. A lot better than the reaction the U.S. and their counterparts got from their last try at appeasement:

"In the nuclear issue, the bullying powers have used up all their capabilities but could not break the will of the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state television.

World powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- on Saturday offered Tehran a new package of technological and economic incentives in exchange for suspending uranium enrichment activities.

Keep it up Israel. You are proving that some people will not pay any attention to sanctions or bribes. They do seem to respond to the threat of force though.

Give It Up, Iran Is Not Going To Stop Enriching Uranium

Don't take my word for it, take theirs:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday the West has failed to break Iran's will in the nuclear standoff, days after world powers presented Tehran with a new offer aimed at ending the crisis.

"In the nuclear issue, the bullying powers have used up all their capabilities but could not break the will of the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state television.

...

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh ruled out on Wednesday that the country could freeze enrichment, saying: "Iran will never submit to such an illegal act.

Iran is not going to peaceably stop. That is what they are saying. That is what they have been saying since the beginning. As crazy as I believe Ahmadinejad to be, I think he means exactly what he is saying here.

This time it was not sanctions. They tried to bribe Iran into submission with money and technology. So you see, we have went from standing up to Iran with sanctions to trying to appease Iran with money. Whats next? Crawling around on our hands and knees begging him to stop?

Don't you think it is time for our elected leaders to lead? I sure as hell do.

Schools, Health Care, Now Oil

Another socia... I mean Democrat wants the government to seize control of a private business:

The itch to control the U.S. oil industry is spreading among Democrats in Washington, with Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., joining in the chorus to nationalize the energy company assets.

"We (the government) should own the refineries," Hinchey said today, according to a Fox News alert. "Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

I wrote about Maxine Waters on this subject back in May. Read it here.

Go here to see the video of Maxine Waters' comments.

Come on now, all of you know the government would run the oil industry more efficiently than anyone in the private sector. Right?

Huge Bakken Oil Field A Myth

A few days ago I posted this about the Bakken Oill field.

It seems I jumped the gun a little:

Reports circulating on the Internet tell of an oil field spanning parts of western North Dakota and eastern Montana where 400 billion barrels of oil supposedly are just waiting to be tapped. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tells Cybercast News Service that those huge estimates are "a myth."

A USGS report issued in April estimates that there are between 3 billion to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in what is referred to as "the Bakken Formation" -- well below the 400 billion barrels discussed on the Web, but up from the previous estimate of 151 million barrels made in 1995.

Richard Pollastro, Bakken Formation task leader at the USGS, said the myth stems from a 1999 draft report -- never published -- by a now-deceased USGS employee, Leigh Price. Price estimated that the Bakken Formation holds up to 400 billion barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has about 260 billion barrels of known oil reserves.

So it looks like there is not as much there as I thought. The thing about the Bakken field is that we can drill there.

Something to smile about- Bush called for an end to the offshore drilling ban today:

President George W. Bush was to call Wednesday on Congress to end a decades-old ban on offshore oil drilling, as a way to tap new energy sources to combat soaring gasoline prices.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement late Tuesday that, with gasoline now priced at more than four dollars a gallon, the president "will explicitly call on Congress to also pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally-friendly offshore oil drilling."

Bush was to make his statement Wednesday at 10:35 am (1435 GMT) in the Rose Garden of the White House.

This would open up huge amounts of oil and natural gas supplies. It would also open up ANWAR.

Charges Dropped For Haditha's Highest Ranking Defendant

John Murtha were are you?:

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) - A military judge dismissed charges Tuesday against a Marine officer accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis.

Col. Steven Folsom dismissed charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani after finding that a four-star general overseeing the case was improperly influenced by an investigator probing the November 2005 shootings by a Marine squad in Haditha.

"Unlawful command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice," Folsom said. "In order to restore the public confidence, we need to take it back. We need to turn the clock back."

Chessani, of Rangely, Colo., was the highest-ranking officer to face a combat-related court-martial since the Vietnam War.

One more to go. I am just sitting here wondering how Murtha feels about this whole deal. He was successful in making himself look like an ass, that is for sure. Of course, I wouldn't sit around waiting on big John to apologize.

Oklahoma 's State House Demands Sovereignty

From World Net Daily:

Steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, Oklahoma's House of Representatives told Washington, D.C., to back off.

Joint House Resolution 1089, passed by an overwhelming 92-3 margin, reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's own language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

The Tenth Amendment states, "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."

...

Charles Key, the Republican state representative who authored the resolution, told WND that he introduced it because he believes the federal government's overstepping of its bounds has put our constitutional form of government in danger.

"The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time," he said. "The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."

Specifically, Resolution 1089 says the following:

"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."

The resolution resolves that Oklahoma will "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."

A statute was set to take effect July 1st that would really crack down on illegal aliens. But, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron stopped it from going into effect. Read about it at the link.

It is about time some states started standing up for themselves. We are seeing the federal government overreach it's boundaries on a regular basis.

I believe sovereignty to be the key to the success of this nation. That is why I am against the invasion this country faces from illegal immigration. The leaders of this country are not interested in protecting it's citizens from the 12-20 million or more invaders. But do the individual states have the authority to address this problem?

I believe that each state's sovereignty is just as important as the sovereignty of the country as a whole. That is what has brought us to where we are today. And that is what will ensure our survival far into the future. Yes, Oklahoma has every right to defend itself against illegal immigration.

The federal government has been successful in eroding this concept. Sure it has taken decade upon decade of work, but it is becoming more and more evident that "states rights" will soon be a thing of the past.

What can be done to turn this around? The article mentions succession. I have been seeing more and more of this word's use lately. Although that is one option, I do not feel it is the right step.

The solution lies within understanding the problem. The problem can be related to the old story of the schoolyard bully. He will keep picking at you until you stand up to him, right? This action by the Oklahoma's House relates to the little kid getting up in the face of the bully. Most of the time that is all that it takes. Of course in this instance their are 50 little kids going against a dominating bully. Can little Oklahoma take on the bully? Well yes. But will it do any good? Probably not. But what if 10, 15, or even 20 of those little kids decide that enough is enough? I would venture to say that may make the bully think about it a little harder.

The sole power to retaliate against the assault on states rights lie with the individual states themselves. My desire would be for many more little states to stand up to the federal government. Whether it would do any good in changing the direction we are going in is any body's guess. One thing is for sure, we cannot continue to follow the same path we are on right now.

I believe I'll throw an e-mail out to a couple of members of my state legislature right now.

Back For More

I'm back and ready to go again. Sorry about my absence for the past couple of weeks.

I was getting back into the swing of things and the first thing I see is this:

Saudi Arabia will raise oil production to record levels within weeks in an attempt to avert an escalation of social and political unrest around the world. King Abdullah signalled the commitment to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, at the weekend after the impact of skyrocketing oil prices on food sparked protests and riots from Spain to South Korea.

Next month, the Saudis will be pumping an extra half-a-million barrels of oil a day compared to last month, bringing total Saudi production to 9.7 million barrels a day, their highest ever level. But the world's biggest oil exporters are coupling the increase with an appeal to western Europe to cut fuel taxes to lower the price of petrol to consumers.

Make sure and read that last sentence again:

But the world's biggest oil exporters are coupling the increase with an appeal to western Europe to cut fuel taxes to lower the price of petrol to consumers.

It's a shame when Saudi's King Abdullah feels the need to tell Congress to lighten up on it's citizens.

Then I see this on Ace of Spades:

You don't hear too much talk about the Bakken field from democrats these days. I wonder why? Could it be because of this:

...Best of all, the Bakken could be huge. The Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died of a heart attack in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.

Yes that is 413 BILLION gallons.

ANWAR, Bakken, Offshore, and any where else we can find it.

The time has come to drill our own oil. If you agree, go here and sign the petition.