Chuck Colson weighs in

February 14th, 2008

Chuck Colson writes: 

The Saudi government funds and operates “mosques, madrassas, and Islamic centers” in the United States and elsewhere. These institutions spread the Salafist, or Wahabi, version of Islam practiced in the kingdom—the same kind that prohibits the practice of Christianity, that lets girls burn to death rather than letting them exit a burning building in their pajamas.

What’s more, it is the version of Islam that inspires bin Laden and other extremists and seeks to dominate other, more moderate, versions of Islam and destroy non-Muslim nations like ours. Without Saudi petro-dollars, Salafism would be confined to the Arabian peninsula. [...]

It is a tribute to “the Saudis’ considerable influence in U.S. corridors of power” that such a ridiculous deal [the Administration's proposed $20 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia includes “satellite-guided weaponry” and “high-tech munitions,” including 900 JDAM bombs] would ever be proposed. It is also, as Gaffney and others have pointed out, a consequence of our dependence on Saudi oil.

Breaking OPEC’s Grip

February 14th, 2008

Robert Zubrin writes:

If something isn’t done to break the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — the cartel that dominates and manipulates the global oil market — the situation is likely to get much worse: With China and India industrializing rapidly, world demand for fuel is going up. OPEC is positioned to exploit this new demand with radical price hikes that go well beyond the 50-percent increase it effected during 2007 alone. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are already calling for prices of $200 per barrel. In short, we Americans are financing a war against ourselves — and the way things are going, we may soon be paying the enemy more than we are paying our own military.

The enemy’s unconstrained ability to loot us is also threatening our economy. Consider this: Congress is raiding the public purse to put $140 billion back in the pockets of American consumers, in the hope that this will provide an economic stimulus to prevent recession. Yet by paying $100 per barrel of oil, we are allowing OPEC to set oil prices high enough to take more than triple that amount out of Americans’ pockets. [...]

In light of this, the top priority of U.S. national-security policy must be to break the oil cartel. This imperative has been apparent since the 1973 oil embargo, but no progress has been made. The only policy solution we’ve tried — domestic energy conservation — has failed, and will continue to fail for two reasons. First — putting aside the near-impossibility of getting American consumers to use less fuel — global demand will continue to grow, so it’s scarcely conceivable that domestic conservation efforts could affect the global oil price. Second, even if we could hypothetically create global conservation, OPEC could simply cut production to keep demand — and prices — high.

However, there is now a way to break OPEC, a surprisingly simple one. What is needed is for Congress to pass a law requiring that all new cars sold (not just made, but sold) in the U.S. be flex-fueled — that is, be able to run on any combination of gasoline or alcohol fuels. Such cars already exist — two dozen different models of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are being produced by Detroit’s Big Three this year — and they only cost about $100 more than identical models that can run on gasoline only. (The switch to FFV requires only two minor upgrades: in the materials used in the fuel line and in the software controlling the electronic fuel injector.)

FFVs currently command only about 3 percent of the new-car market. After all, there is little upside for consumers to own one, with alcohol-fuel pumps being nearly as rare as unicorns. Little wonder: Why should gas-station owners dedicate one of their pumps to alcohol fuels (like E85 — a mix of 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline — or M50 — a mix of half methanol and half gasoline) when only a tiny percentage of cars can use them? But, within three years of the enactment of an FFV mandate, there would be 50 million cars on American roads capable of running on high-alcohol fuels. Under those conditions, fuel pumps dispensing E85 and M50 would be everywhere — creating, for the first time, an effectively open market in vehicle fuels, and competition for OPEC oil.

‘Unavoidable’?

February 14th, 2008

Frank Gaffney responds to the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is pronouncement last week that we had better get used to the imposition of Shariah (Islamic law) in Britain since it is now, in the Archbishop’s words, “unavoidable.”:

The creeping (some call it “Fabian”) imposition of Shariah in America and other freedom-loving nations is not exclusively a product of the coercive effects of terror-backed intimidation and what it evokes from the likes of Archbishop Williams in the form of politically correct “sensitivity” and acts of appeasement.

It is also the result of the money available to avowed Islamists and their enablers in places like Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states. [...]

Whether movements of these funds manifest themselves as U.S. acquisitions by Sovereign Wealth Funds (which would be better described as “Dictators Slush Funds”) emanating from Islamist nations or as so-called “Shariah-compliant finance,” the effect, over time, will be truly “unavoidable”: investments in what the Islamofascists call “financial jihad” — penetration and subversion of American and other Western capitalist systems.

It is an ignominious fact that most of the money put to such insidious uses comes from us, in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars we transfer abroad to purchase oil. [...]

We [...]must do something meaningful and effective about what President Bush has rightly called “our addiction to oil.”

Fortunately, there is a practical, near-term and low-cost way to begin dramatically reducing our dependence on oil imported from places that wish us ill: “fuel competition.” This alternative to our present, near-exclusive reliance on a commodity controlled by a cartel can be achieved by creating an infrastructure that will permit our transportation sector (where we use most of our imported oil and use it most profligately) to use instead “Freedom Fuels” — namely, ethanol and methanol that we can produce here at home or import cost-effectively from friendly countries.

How can we obtain such an infrastructure? Simple: By adopting an Open Fuel Standard that requires every new car sold in America to have not only seat-belts and air bags but Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) capability. An FFV can use ethanol or methanol or gasoline (or some combination) thanks to a chip and some plastic fittings in the fuel system. Today, these cost a trivial $100 per car. When in three years time, 50 million American cars have this feature (and another 50 million to 100 million overseas), the marginal additional cost will probably be zero.

Shaking that oil saber

February 8th, 2008

The Wall Street Journal reports that today OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri was quoted in the Middle East Economic Digest: “maybe we can price the oil in the euro.”

Here’s an article by Gal Luft on How to Make OPEC Blink.

Did you get a big heating oil bill?

February 7th, 2008

High oil prices mean big home heating bills. Here are some tips to help you save oil and money – click on the links for details:

Seal air leaks – make sure your heated air isn’t literally flying out the door, window, or fireplace.

Keep your fireplace damper closed unless a fire is going. Keeping the damper open is like keeping a window wide open during the winter; it allows warm air to go right up the chimney.

Weatherize windows

Open draperies and shades on southfacing windows during the day to allow sunlight to enter  and close at night to reduce the chill from cold windows.

Turn off kitchen, bath, and other exhaust fans within 20 minutes after you are done cooking or bathing – they pull heated air out of your house.

Beef up insulation

Set thermostat as low as is comfortable.

Make sure your heating vents are not blocked by furniture, carpeting, or drapes.

Cut your water heating bills.

Lots more tips here.

Rick Santorum agrees it’s time to Set America Free

January 31st, 2008

Senator Santorum writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

It’s been two years since President Bush admitted we are “addicted to oil.” This expensive addiction has taken a toll on our economy while funding major sponsors of the jihadis and other terrorists that seek to harm us.

We have been told the only way to break this addiction is to reduce consumption, as in the recently passed mandate to increase fuel efficiency. I am all for conservation and improving fuel economy, as with hybrid cars, but even if everyone drove a hybrid it would just slow the rate of growth in our consumption of oil. Those savings will be more than offset by our reduction in national oil production because we are unwilling to drill in Alaska and offshore. In other words, the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela have us over a barrel.

I suggest that in the short term, we dig our way out of this problem. The United States is the “Saudi Arabia of coal,” and Pennsylvania is sitting on hundreds of years of this affordable and accessible resource, which, with innovative technologies – spearheaded by Pennsylvanians – we can use cleanly and right away.

Pennsylvania coal already generates most of the electricity in this state. The industry is in the process of doing it more cleanly through clean-coal technologies, such as gasification of coal into methanol, a form of alcohol that can be burned in internal combustion engines directly or used to manufacture synthetic gasoline and chemicals. These technologies can lead to a whole host of new clean uses that can help us reduce oil imports.

Just two hours up the road from Philadelphia, the nation’s first coal-to-gas-to-diesel facility may soon be developed in Schuylkill County; word was expected today on a U.S. Department of Energy loan of $100 million to help enable construction. This fuel, which is currently being used in another coal-rich country, South Africa, can be used to power jets, heat your home, and run diesel engines.

Across Pennsylvania, farmers are also digging and planting corn and other crops that will be turned into ethanol that can replace gasoline in our cars. Most cars in America can’t run on ethanol, however, so who is going to install ethanol pumps at the gas station without the cars to run on it? At this point I would say to all of my hard-core conservative friends: Hold on to your hats.

What we need is a government mandate! We need to mandate that all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be “flex-fuel vehicles” – that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (the so-called E85 blend), or even a coal-derived methanol/gas mixture. This mandate would cost a fraction of the new fuel economy standard with the added benefit of saving barrels more oil.

What would Chávez and company do in response? Jack up production to kill this industry off before it gets off the ground. So – hold on again, conservatives – let’s put a temporary tax trigger on imported oil if the price hits $50 per barrel. Anyone think it will go that low without this idea?

Finally, Congress should immediately repeal the protectionist $26 per barrel tax on imported ethanol. So while we may have a tax increase if oil prices drop, we offset that with an immediate tax cut on ethanol. That’s a net win for taxpayers and our energy security. Ethanol will begin to flow into this country from poor third-world countries that don’t have oil or much in the way of terrorists. U.S. popularity would soar in the third world and help the poor of those countries as well as ours.

Energetic economics

January 30th, 2008

Cliff May writes:

It’s become a ritual: The economy grows sluggish and politicians rush to “do something” about it. What they do almost never has a beneficial economic impact, as any reputable economist will tell you.

But what if lawmakers could guarantee that the price you pay to fill the tank of your car will go down, not up, in the years ahead? What if they could launch a new industry that creates more jobs for more Americans? What if this would produce environmental benefits, too? Would that not send a message to the markets? And would that not represent the kind of change so many politicians have been promising?

Here’s the deal: Everyone who is not an economic illiterate knows that competition leads to lower prices. But there is no competitive market in transportation fuels. In most parts of the country, you can buy gasoline or you can buy gasoline. And most cars can run on gasoline or gasoline.It doesn’t have to be that way. There are alternative fuels. And there are automobiles built to burn them. But there is a chicken-and-egg dilemma: Why buy a car that can use alternative fuels if those fuels are not readily available at a local service station? Why devote a pump at a local service station to alternative fuels if there are few customers asking for them?

Elected officials could solve this problem with the stroke of a pen. An “open standards” fuel law would require that all new cars sold in the United States be flexible-fuel vehicles — able to run not just on gasoline, but also on a variety of alcohol-based fuels.

A car that is flexible-fuel capable costs only about $100 more. But if you want to make this transition cost-neutral for the automobile companies, consider a tax break to reward them for making the transition as quickly as possible.

Zubrin’s plan to destroy OPEC

January 27th, 2008

Robert Zubrin’s oped in the Rocky Mountains news is an excellent explanation of how opening up the transportation fuel market to competition would result in a reallocation of resources on a global scale, from petrotyranies to third world farmers. Through fuel competition and Congressional flex fuel mandate we can stop the bleeding of our economy and the enrichment of our enemies while helping the economies of the developing world –

“We could effectively take more than a trillion dollars a year that is now going to the oil cartel, and direct it toward the world agricultural sector instead. This would not only be of great benefit to farmers here, but an enormous boon to the Third World, which otherwise faces brutal looting through continued unconstrained OPEC price hikes.”

The Price of Oil and the Pace of Freedom

January 23rd, 2008

One of the Administration’s key goals has been democratization. Since most of the world’s oil is controlled by dictatorships, that goal stands in stark conflict with high oil prices. Listen to this NPR segment from 2005 (when oil price was about half what it is today) titled Analysts See U.S. Goals and Global Oil Needs in Conflict (if you’ve been keeping track of the Set America Free Coalition’s work you will have heard this already, but it’s brief and worth another listen.)

Thomas Friedman’s Discovery Channel documentary “Addicted to Oil” (featuring the Coalition) elaborated on the conflict between democratization and expensive oil, calling it  The First Law of Petropolitics: “The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in oil-rich petrolist states. According to the First Law of Petropolitics, the higher the average global crude oil price rises, the more free speech, free press, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, and independent political parties are eroded. And these negative trends are reinforced by the fact that the higher the price goes, the less petrolist leaders are sensitive to what the world thinks or says about them. Conversely, according to the First Law of Petropolitics, the lower the price of oil, the more petrolist countries are forced to move toward a political system and a society that is more transparent, more sensitive to opposition voices, and more focused on building the legal and educational structures that will maximize their people’s ability, both men’s and women’s, to compete, start new companies, and attract investments from abroad. The lower the price of crude oil falls, the more petrolist leaders are sensitive to what outside forces think of them.”

Reviewing Freedom House‘s 2008 edition of its annual Freedom in the World report, the Wall Street Journal agrees: “Whereas once the economic inadequacy of communism spelled the eventual doom for Eastern Europe’s totalitarians, today oil wealth could perpetuate authoritarians indefinitely if free nations let it. ”

We are addicted to oil; authoritarian suppliers are addicted to petrodollars. It’s well past time to change the equation.

How Saudis suppress free speech in Canada

January 21st, 2008

A Canadian newspaper publisher called Ezra Levant decided to publish the Danish cartoons in his newspaper, irking a radical Saudi trained imam. That imam, who has called for the imposition of Sharia – Islamic law – in our northern neighbor has utilized a Kafka-esque government entity called the “Canadian Human Rights Commission” — think of it as the Candian version of the Saudi Mutaween, aka the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice — to investigate the publisher for exercising his fundamental right to free speech in a way that a radical Muslim perceives as offensive. Essentially, this imam is using the Canadian Human Rights Commission to enforce radical Islamic speech codes.

The clips below of the interrogation are a must see for anybody who cares about the preservation of our freedom.

Ezra Levant’s opening statement at the interrogation:

The interrogating bureaucrat on the hunt for a thought crime:

If you would like to support this brave man’s fight for our inalienable right to free speech, you can do so at his website EzraLevant.com.