You are currently viewing archive for October 2008
This link will take you to a website that will list the companies selling gasoline made from USA and Canadian petroleum.

Sinclair is perhaps the most common.

Citizen Warrior has more; as does the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

In the last several decades we have made the largest transfer of wealth in history from Europe, Japan, and the U.S. to the oil-producing nations. The billions of dollars transfered to many nations in the Middle East, most noticably Saudi Arabia, have funded militant Islam around the globe. Buy gas from Saudi Arabia and support terrorism.

Mariner posted a comment that deserves a wider read:

I won't get into the macro-level concerns against movements like these, but instead I'll point out a few errors in the cited material:

1) The Citizen Warrior article contains a link to a chart showing percentage of crude oil imports coming from the Persian Gulf. (

Errors here:
a)The Persian Gulf as defined here includes Iraq. Natural, for a purely geographic definition, but in this case, we as Americans WANT to buy Iraqi oil! If we want to have a stable Iraq, if we want to lower our troop numbers there (and limit American deaths), we NEED an economically viable Iraqi government. This hinges on oil exports. Conservatives of all people should be first lining up to buy Iraqi oil.
b) As alluded to earlier, "Persian Gulf" as a political designation is very difficult to support. Yes, the Saudi government has supported madrassas which have supported terrorist training. They should be out. Hell no, we shouldn't support Iran. But the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain? We would have no military presence in the Gulf if not for the support of these countries (Navy base in Bahrain, Air Force base in Qatar, major Army post in Kuwait.) I'm having a tough time buying a boycott of these countries.
c) Again, the "Persian Gulf" designation: this list focuses on one region (which we've already seen is 2/3 wrong anyway) to the detriment of others. What about gas from Venezuela? Russia? Citgo is transparent enough: it = Hugo Chavez. Oil from GazProm or LukOil (both Russia) is more difficult to distinguish, and should be pointed out. Also, some of the companies listed as "good" for low percentages of gulf oil do far more damage elsewhere. Shell, for example, is hand-in-glove with the Nigerian government, ranked the most corrupt in the world. I personally don't buy Shell gasoline, because the amount of human suffering inflicted in Nigeria as a result of its and the government's policies is astronomical.

2) The Terror-free oil initiative:

a) They lose for sheer logical disconnect. The two categories for oil companies? "Companies that do not import oil from the Persian Gulf" and "Companies that finance terrorism by importing oil from the Middle East". Apples and oranges between Persian Gulf and Middle East, for one. Two, it's a mere tautology to speak of Persian Gulf equaling Terror-support. Trust me, *most* governments in the Middle East (or Persian Gulf, if you prefer) have as much if not more to fear from Islamic extremism as we do.
b) Maybe a little more nit-picking, but the list of "good" companies includes a caveat for Hess and Sunoco, as they import oil from Algeria, "home of GIA and GSPC." First, the GSPC doesn't exist anymore - it's now AQIM, but that's just a detail. More importantly, the GIA and GSPC's primary enemy and raison d'etre is the Algerian government. Who gets oil revenue, and uses a portion of this revenue to finance anti-terrorism operations? - the government. [We equip and train these troops, too]

I think most of these errors come down to portraying the entire situation in too broad of terms: It's purely "us" and "them", regardless of who "they" actually ARE. That's misidentifying the problem; the solution is misidentified as well. I fully recognize the value of conservative viewpoints, but economic isolationism is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem - I don't think it will work.

Granted: the category "Persian Gulf" is too simple and misleading. And agreed, Venezuala and Russia should not be encouraged right now with our oil money. Agreed, no oil money to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Re: "economic isolationism," I still think it is a tremendous problem for us in transfering so much wealth to other nations. And, there are two things no nation can be dependent on and survive long as an independent nation--food and energy.
Jihadwatch reminds us that October is the month in which Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeated Islamic invaders near Tours. This battle is called the Battle of Tours, or, the Battle of Poitiers.

For some time after conquering the Iberian penninsula, the Muslims had raided into Gaul, and contested Christian rule there. Finally, in 732 an army of about 80,000 led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, pushed into Gaul. Charles met them near Tours with an army about half their size. The victory by Charles Martel saved Western Europe from Islamic conquest.

So, if you prefer the Europe of cathedrals, to the averted fate of Europe with mosques, then raise a glass to The Hammer this month.

To read more, here, and here, and here is an account from an anonymour Muslim chronicler. And here excerpts from 3 medieval accounts.
And I'm not talking about the bailout, although that was nice.

I'm talking about the Senate's other action yesterday, to approve the nuclear trade treaty with India. The treaty allows civilian nuclear trade between the U.S. and India for the first time since India started its own nuclear program in the 1970s.

I don't think I could overstate the importance of this action.

I'm not talking about the impact of Indian nuclear reactors but about the fact that India is now in the inner circle of U.S. allies.
[Although the nuclear power issue is important, as well. India is in position to out-consume the U.S. in terms of energy (well, not for a decade or so) and a network of nuclear plants will make a significant difference in world CO2 output.]

And, for once, I agree with Condoleeza that this is a very good thing.

Bosqueboys has previously commented on the strategic importance of a relationship with India here and here.

In short, India is a natural ally of the U.S. - a big, noisy, federal democracy. It's on its way to join the top-tier economies and it's got the potential to be the major maritime force in the India Ocean. The arguably two largest threats to the U.S. in the next 10 years are Iran and China - both of which are significant threats to India, registering behind only Pakistan (in the minds of Indians, at least.)

This deal is getting some flak, and understandably, for the fact that India is a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Critics of the trade deal insist that it's sending the message that a state can flout international convention and be rewarded for it. I would humble point out that the single largest recipient of American aid, Israel, is also a non-signatory to the NPT (and Israel almost certainly has nuclear weapons, too.)

I hope that our next President, whoever it is, cultivates what could very well be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.