November 18, 2010
Tyler Formation could be one-third to one-half the size of the Bakken oil field

ShareState Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms says the Tyler Formation is most likely one-third to one-half the size of the Bakken in terms of coverage area and oil reserves. The Tyler lies about 2,000 feet above the Bakken. The Tyler Formation above the Bakken encompasses nearly all of western and southwestern North Dakota and extends into South Dakota. The Bakken covers some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Officials believe more than 4-8 billion barrels of oil can be recovered using current technology.

“From the conventional standpoint (vertical wells) the wells drilled into the Tyler sandstones are better producers than most of the vertical wells drilled into the Bakken/Three Forks,” Nordeng said. “This is because the Tyler contains reservoir rocks (sandstones) that allow economic oil production from vertical wells whereas the Bakken/Three Forks wells (outside the Antelope Field) do not. However, the new horizontal Bakken/Three Forks wells are much better producers, at least initially, than the old vertical Tyler wells

So North dakota is turning up large area and thin oil formations at many levels. Besides the Bakken there is also the Spearfish oil formation (also called the Waskada).

The Three forks formation probably adds 2 billion barrels to the Bakken

The Bakken has massive amounts of oil in place.

This might be an effective 1-2 punch:

1. Let state legislators know that we favor a 10th Amendment endorsement by all states to defend and support State Soverienty rights. A number of states have already voted affirmative on measures like this. Taking back that which rightfully belongs to the states is a good idea and should be promoted.

2. Ask our federal legislators to use a litmus test on every single item that comes to a vote in the House and Senate. That litmus test asks one simple question: “Does this measure fall within the guidelines established by the US Constitution?” If it does not, it must be voted against.

Finally, the knock-down punch: As has many an activist done, we must paint those who believe that it is okay to continue growing the federal government in a very negative light as “Anti-Constitutionalists.” The battle now is between “Pro-Constitutionalists and Anti-Constitutionalists.” Choose ye this day…

However, increasingly society has divided along two lines. Statism, a term ascribed by author and constitutional scholar Mark Levin, can be defined as a belief that the federal government is the solution to all problems, individual or otherwise (Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, 2009). Conservatism, which is the other side of the line, calls for less government intervention in the private sector. In both, however, a reliance on the federal government to set the terms is evident. The conservative movement is as guilty of overstepping the role of the federal government as statists and liberals are. Both demand greater regulation in the affairs of the governed, just in different forms. Amnesty for illegal aliens, which devalues citizenship for those who do it correctly, was a conservative push in the Reagan era. The demand for conscripted higher taxes on the wealthy to provide for the poor is a statist position. Neither are founded in the constitution. In reality, there is little difference in the work done by politicians on both sides of the line. For the most part, what can be done to solidify control and power to the federal government and the governing class is the course of action those in office will undertake, whether their name is followed by a D or an R.

The time has come for the restoration of a philosophy that dates to the founding of this great nation- Constitutionalism. While the concept has been around for generations, never has its importance been greater than it is now. As defined by this author, Constitutionalism is a belief that the federal government must be restored to the original size and scope the Constitution of the United States outlines. Constitutionalism is a position that cannot be argued, unless one believes that an overthrow of our federal government is in order, and the direction our future should take. One cannot have both sides of this issue. Either one supports and defends that Constitution as written and amended from time to time, or one believes it is an outdated document and no longer needed or valid.

If you believe that statism, the absence of a constitutionally based federal government, and a rule of law that is ever changing to satiate the appetites of the governing class is the future you want for your children, then you seek the status quo in Washington. Mind you, the status quo in Washington is constantly changing, an interesting paradox.

On the other hand, if you believe in a solid, unchanging rule of law that restricts government intervention in your life, that puts money back into the hands of the governed by reducing the size of government to the original scope the Constitution establishes, and that removes the impediments of over-regulation, you seek Constitutionalism.

Now is the time to choose; do so wisely.

“The concept of the modern day Tea Party began on December 16, 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign came together and raised over $6 million online in one day. The tremendous success of that event led activists in the freedom movement and members of the Campaign for Liberty to begin planning today’s Tax Day Tea Parties.
 
“Success always brings company, and it is very positive that so many conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, constitutionalists and even progressives have come together and joined our efforts. All Americans who are sincere about cutting out of control government spending are welcome to stand with Dr. Paul and the Campaign for Liberty as we fight to take our country back.” [iii] 
 
Referenced above is the State Coordinator for Michigan, Adam de Angeli.  In his powerpoint Creating a Successful Proposal, he lets his constituents know that “…it is a major—not ancillary—goal that this project serve as a recruitment vehicle for the Campaign for Liberty.” [iv]
 
And then there is this, an absolute must read, posted on Campaign for Liberty’s website-

“Success with these new groups, start with how you approach the leaders.  If you have the thought in your head that you are going to take over right from the start you will run into big defensive walls and will outcast yourself rather than make your self a credible leader!  Go to the meetings and start to lay the ground work and show them that you are in this to work hard for the cause, and they will put you in a leadership position.  They will start to respect you and listen to your experiences.  Let them benefit from your experience and then lead them to the Campaign For Liberty.

“My experience thus far has been very rewarding and I’m in my first week working with this “New Blood”.  When you begin to work with them don’t throw the C4L down their throats right from the beginning this is something that will take patience.  You are so excited to tell them what they are looking for is right here, but let them get through their meetings with their agendas throughout the meeting you can through (throw?) little nuggets in the conversations that in your experience over the last few months or years that you have been involved with various other movements.  Let them ask you don’t tell them.  Just give small amounts of information that peaks their interests.

“The bottom line is take advantage of this new movement!  They need us and we need them!  If you establish yourself as a true patriot and leader you will have enough influence to direct our new friends towards the C4L and make a larger more successful impact next time you talk with your local politicians.  Good luck and enjoy the new relationships you will create while you involve yourself into their agenda’s.  With a little bit of time you will be helping to create the Agenda!” [v] (posted by Jake Mabus, IL 19th Regional Coordinator, Campaign for Liberty)
 
We must not allow Campaign for Liberty and the Ron Paul organization take control of the Tea Parties or 9-12 events.  Restoring the constitution to its original size and scope must be our goal, and it must be pure and true without intervention by any politician’s organization. Do not be led astray!
 
–

Kelly Knight
Copyright, 2009

 
[i]  (retrieved 05/08/2009 from http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/tea-parties-and-the-role-of-government/)
[ii] (John Tate, President, Campaign for Liberty, retrieved on 05/08/2009 from http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=node/27785 )  Please note that the website referenced here has been “suspended.”  However, I found the same quote at http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/gm-going-into-bankruptcy/ You will need to do Ctrl-F and type Angeli to get to the quote; the page is quite long and this is the fastest method.

[iii] (Official Statement from Campaign for Liberty as retrieved on 05/08/2009 from http://joerobertson.com/ron-paul/ron-paul-and-tax-day-tea-parties, with a link to http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view= that requires a membership login to read.)
[iv] (retrieved on 05/08/2009 from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/user/Adam_de_Angeli/successfulproposals.pdf
[v] (retrieved on 05/08/2009 from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16803 )

“What we face long term, the biggest problem we have is that Medicare and Medicaid — health care costs are sky-rocketing, and at the same time as the population is getting older, which means we’re using more health care — you combine those two things, and if we aren’t careful, health care will consume so much of our budget that ultimately we won’t be able to do anything else.  We won’t be able to provide financial assistance to students; we won’t be able to help build green energy; we won’t be able to help industries that get into trouble; we won’t have a national park system; we won’t be able to do what we’re supposed to do on our veterans.  Everything else will be pushed aside because of Medicare and Medicaid.  That’s the problem that we really confront.

That’s why I’ve said we’ve got to have health reform this year — (applause) — to drive down costs and make health care affordable for American families, businesses and for our government.  (Applause.) 

So, you know, when you see — those of you who are watching certain news channels that — on which I’m not very popular — (laughter) — and you see folks waving tea bags around — (laughter) — let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we’re going to stabilize Social Security.  Claire and I are working diligently to do basically a thorough audit of federal spending.  But let’s not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that’s just a fraction of the overall problem that we’ve got.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/29/Retrospective-in-Missouri/)

Mr. Obama, the issue over which the April 15^th Tea Parties were held is not healthcare, nor was it over the stimulus package.  It has been estimated that 1.2 million Americans exercised their first amendment rights to assemble peaceably, and the seek redress from the government for their grievances.  And at least for those attending the Birmingham, AL tea party, all 8,000 strong, the cause was even more basic- we want to restore our constitutionally based republic. 

You mentioned in you response that if healthcare costs continued to sky-rocket, the federal government would not be able to provide financial assistance to students.  Where in the constitution is it mandated that the federal government provide financial assistance to students?  You stated that the federal government would not be able to help build green-energy.  Where in the constitution is it mandated that the federal government provide for green, or any other color, energy?  You stated that the federal government would not be able to help industries in trouble.  Where in the constitution is it mandated that the federal government is to assist troubled industry?  You stated that the federal government would not be able to have a national park system.  Again, where in the constitution is the federal government mandated to have and maintain the national park system? 

The only point you did make in the entire line up was the responsibility the federal government does have to our military, to provide for the common defense of the nation.  Taking care of our veterans is an obligation of the federal government despite the position of your administration that vets returning from combat should be watched closely to insure that they do not become home-grown terrorists.

No, Mr. Obama, the tea parties were not about healthcare, but about a federal government that has well exceeded the size and scope that is mandated by the U. S. Constitution, and the fact that we reject unconstitutional federal authority in favor of state and local authority.  You have marginalized the 1.2 million citizens, and I look forward to the day when that number doubles, then triples, and becomes a real threat to your administration.

You made the following statement regarding AIG “This is completely ludicrous. I literally can’t think of enough adjectives to describe how mad I am, how mad Montanans are and how mad Americans are. For AIG to give these bonuses is stupid, irresponsible and unethical. I’ll not stand idly by while reckless CEOs pull such outrageous shenanigans.” (Missoulian.com, 3/18/2009).  On the other hand, you have taken $91,000 from AIG for your campaign over the last several years, receiving $24,750 in the 2008 election cycle alone.  That, sir, is ludicrous and outrageous!  And to feign ignorance is absurd in light of the fact that AIG’s troubles have been known for at least a year, during which time your campaign will have received funding.

The Missoulian.com further states that you said you are “exploring several measures to impose heavy taxes on the bonuses to help recoup the taxpayer funds that went to AIG. One possibility, he said, is imposing an excise tax, which would amount to a tax on the transaction between AIG and each executive who received a bonus and levied on both the individual and the company.”  This will be a direct violation of the constitution you have sworn to uphold, and a violation of the good conscience of reasonable men and women. Article 1 of the U. S. Constitution, Section 9 clearly states: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Have you placed yourself so above the law that you are now no longer beholden to the law?  Do you honestly believe that the constitution is only so much toilet paper to be wadded up and flushed down the toilet into the cesspool that has become the federal government?  Mr. Baucus, in the words of Ronald Reagan, you, sir, are not the answer to our problems, you are the problem.

I hereby challenge you to exercise a morsel of conscience and moral rectitude in your legislative acts, or be replaced.

The people believed in Obama’s message of change- they bought Obama t-shirts to express their support

They bought t-shirts to express their support for change- They found they were left with only change in their pockets

They found they were left with only change in their pockets- they held a yard sale to raise much needed cash

The held a yard sale to raise much needed cash- where they sold their Obama t-shirts. (R. A. Tillinghast, 2009)