How to Boost the Economy of the Free World While Cutting Off Funds to Orthodox Muslim Countries


IN 2008, just as the world economy was crashing, OPEC decided to reduce the amount of oil they produced in order to keep oil prices high. The free world's economy relies on transportation. And transportation relies on oil.

OPEC is an organization of oil producing countries, most of which are Muslim countries. The two most notable members of OPEC are Saudi Arabia and Iran. OPEC controls enough of the world's oil supply to be able to adjust the oil prices on the world market. If another country starts producing more oil (putting more oil on the market, which would normally reduce the price of oil), OPEC reduces their output, preventing world oil prices from dropping. They try to keep the price as high as possible while undercutting any competing fuels.

In other words, OPEC has a large influence on the world economy. And they do not have non-Muslims' best interests in mind. While the rest of the world crashed economically, OPEC countries reaped a windfall.

One of the things they're doing with all the money is building mosques and madrases around the world, and controlling what message is delivered in those institutions, making sure it is orthodox, fundamental, intolerant, supremacist Islam.

In one smooth move, we can change all this.

All we have to do is make it mandatory that
all cars sold in the United States are flex fuel vehicles, which means making it mandatory to install two things: 1) a new fuel sensor and 2) corrosion-resistant fuel lines that can handle different kinds of fuel besides gasoline (but including gasoline). This small tweak costs very little. Car manufacturers in the U.S. already do it for cars sold in Brazil (90% of cars sold in Brazil are flex fuel vehicles).

With this simple policy, a whole new world opens up for us. Why? Because it allows
competition. Right now oil has a monopoly on transportation. It is the only viable fuel we can use in our vehicles (97 percent of the fuel used in U.S. transportation is petroleum-based).

Introduce competition to the liquid fuel market and one of two things will happen, both of them good. As companies produce new kinds of fuel and sell them cheaper than oil, OPEC will have a choice to either drop their prices to compete, or lose the sale.

Either way, we win and they lose.

Two organizations are intent on pushing through legislation in the United States to mandate flex fuel cars: NozzleRage and Set America Free. Please support them, use their resources to pressure your representatives, and tell your friends about them.

I'm from the U.S., so these organizations are for the U.S. Please send us the websites of organizations in
your country. Either put them in comments or email them to us and we'll put them in comments for you. Let's get this simple fix started right away. Let's choke off the money flowing to Islamic countries. Let's stop the proliferation of madrases and mosques around the world. Let's shut them down and boost our economy at the same time. Are you with me? Let's do this.

Read more about this important imperative: How to Break Both Oil’s Monopoly and OPEC’s Cartel (PDF document) by R. James Woolsey and Anne Korin.

Here's a couple of excerpts from the article:

The unique strategic importance of oil to the modern economy stems from the fact that oil has a virtual monopoly in the global economy’s very enabler — the transportation sector (contrary to popular belief, at present only 2 percent of U.S. electricity is generated from oil, and conversely only about 2 percent of U.S. oil demand is due to electricity generation.) A century of a transportation sector dominated by petroleum — almost all of the world’s cars, trucks, ships and planes can run on nothing but petroleum products — has led to an acceptance of this domination as the natural order and oil’s status as a strategic commodity as a fait accompli. As a result, instead of viewing oil’s strategic value as a problem that needs to be addressed, when it comes to energy the focus has been, from a foreign policy perspective — as articulated by the Carter Doctrine — on ensuring uninterrupted access to oil including by military force if necessary. From a domestic policy perspective, we have concentrated on policies that increase either the availability of petroleum or the efficiency of its use.

Another excerpt:

For a cost of less than $100 extra as compared to a gasoline-only vehicle, automakers can make virtually any car a flex fuel vehicle, capable of running on any combination of gasoline and a variety of alcohols such as ethanol and methanol, and in the future butanol, made from a variety of feedstocks. These can include agricultural residues and grasses, animal and municipal waste, and even carbon dioxide (as Japan’s Mitsui Chemicals plans to do) — elegant possibilities for using reform of transportation to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. There are many possibilities in the works — indeed, alcohol does not just mean ethanol, and ethanol does not just mean corn.

At present, the U.S. domestic alternative fuel industry faces a blend barrier — non flexible cars can only handle up to 10% alcohol fuel, a capacity the domestic industry has already achieved. An open fuel standard requiring new cars to be flex fuel vehicles, which can handle up to 85% alcohol, will eliminate this blend barrier and, beyond encouraging the domestic industry to expand, make it politically realistic to open developed world transportation fuel markets to alternative fuels imported from developing countries.

I urge you to read the article and share it with everyone you know: How to Break Both Oil’s Monopoly and OPEC’s Cartel.

For more information about the flex fuel imperative, read the Myths and Facts about OPEC and Flex Fuel Vehicles.

Something else you can do: Email
Nozzle Rage: Lovers Lane to your friends or post it on Facebook. Or this video: Nozzle Rage: Attack of the Pump.

Let's make this legislation a reality now. It's practical, it's simple, it uses already-existing technology, and it will strike a decisive blow to
the third jihad.


Citizen Warrior 12:49 PM  

Someone wrote to us and said, "I've read that ethanol and other non-petroleum-based fuels cost a lot more than gasoline, much of which is subsidized by our government. But if we would just drill for and use our own oil, we'd be substantially independent of foreign oil."

I replied:

I've heard the same thing too. But right now there is almost no market for non-petroleum fuel. If all cars were equipped to handle multiple fuels, there would be a financial incentive to mass produce alternative fuels, which could make them competitive. And if we drill our own oil, OPEC will simply drill less, keeping prices the same.

Citizen Warrior 12:51 PM  

He wrote back saying:

We could supply all or nearly all of our petroleum needs. I don't know how much crude other nations buy from OPEC, but if we produced a lot of our own, OPEC would have a greatly reduced market for their own which would impact their pocketbooks. If they further reduced their output to support world prices, they would almost stop their inflow of money and cut their own throats economically.

If we go heavily to ethanol etc. our costs at the pump plus government subsidy would put us deeper in the economic hole. Consumer pays the bottom line!

Here's my reply:

Our costs at the pump plus government subsidy would put us deeper in the economic hole IF competition didn't work. If it DID work, the plan would work.

In the "Myths and Facts" link near the bottom of the article, one of the items says this:

Increasing our supply of domestic oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it will not end it. The Department of Energy estimate of the number of barrels in ANWR ranges anywhere from as little as 5.7 billion to as high as 16 billion. The U.S. currently consumes approximately 7.5 billion barrels of oil each year—5 billion of which are imported. Hypothetically, if the reserves in ANWR were to become available immediately, they would at best provide 2 years worth of oil consumption. However, immediate production is impossible. The economic relief that oil from ANWR could provide would be staggered over the course of a number of years, and thus minimized. As such, the Energy Information Administration estimates that ANWR exploration will likely only cut crude oil prices by 75 cents per barrel by 2025.

In terms of the global market, U.S. domestic drilling will not reduce OPEC’s ability to dictate oil prices. To date, the U.S. has approximately 30 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. By contrast, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the UAE, and Kuwait have more than 700 billion barrels of oil. The U.S. does have about 22 billion barrels of oil available in its continental shelves. However, continental exploration is a prolonged and expensive process that, even long term, would not increase America’s share in the global market—which would grow from 10 percent to 11 percent. Even if OPEC’s global share stayed stagnant at 42%, they would still have a controlling interest in the market and the ability to manipulate prices at will.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP