Pamela Geller: Romney's vow to end funding of jihadist nations

This ignores the fact that European and Asian nations dependent on imported energy supplies will continue to transfer their own wealth to Islamic nations that export oil and gas. Thus, the Grand Jihad will continue to be funded, at least, until someone makes clear to the regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE that there will be serious consequences if they continue down that road. Their Achilles heel is water; they cannot eat or drink sand.

If Egypt embarks in the direction of Iran, one there biggest vulnerabilities is the Aswan Dam.

Romney's greatest battle will be with the enviromental wackos in this country who would rather put this nation at risk then drill some holes and lay some pipes.

I'm sorry, but the arguments made in the article are specious and easily proven false. eliasx has it correct. Oil is a valuable commodity in the world, and the Saudis, Libyans, and other Islamic oil countries will continue to receive an ocean of payments from industrialized countries.

Even if the US cuts off all trade with Saudi Arabia and ships none of its oil, the US has a huge balance of payments deficit with China. China needs lots of oil for its expanding economy, so China can simply takes its US dollars and give them to Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil.

What really scares me about Romney is he seems not to have addressed the real issue, which is putting legal restraints on the use of foreign money to influence politics and events in this country. As long as it is legal for foreign interests to fund organizations, university chairs, and lobby groups in the US, we will be entirely susceptible to subversion. As long as it is legal for past or future administration officials, including Presidents, to have extensive personal business dealings with oil-rich Islamic countries, we will see dangers to the US, like Islam, to be whitewashed.

I still don't see any indication that Romney will be significantly better than Obama with respect to policy to Islamic interests. Furthermore, if Romney indicates he will slow down the rate of withdrawal from Afghanistan or Iraq, I will consider definitely supporting Obama.

FINALLY.
Now we're getting to the root cause of the resurgence of Islam in the last century.
It's OIL MONEY that has funded the spread of Islam, Muslim immigration and Jihad.
Seizing the Arab's oil would be the quickest, easiest way to pull the plug on Islam.

"In February of 1945, President Roosevelt at a meeting in Egypt with Abdel Aziz bin Saud, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, pledged to defend the kingdom in exchange for a steady flow of oil."
https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/saudi-struggle-vs-iran-looks-likely-to-get-worse/

"... we could solve all our economic and political problems by taking over the Arab oil fields [and] bringing in Texans and Oklahomans to operate them." - Henry Kissinger 1975
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/03/thirty-year-itch
Please read the rest of this article to see how eerily prophetic was Kissingers warning of 1975.

In 1973 the Arabs/Muslims committed an act of war against the United States and all of Western Civilization by the Oil Embargo.
At that time, in 1975, the U.S. had a choice to make, should it respond by defending itself and Western Civilization by conquering Islam and taking their oil weapon away from them, as Kissinger advised, or should it surrender and submit to Islam?
It chose surrender and submission, and that is the cause of most of our problems with Islam ever since.

In light of all the consequences predicted by Henry Kissinger in his 1975 paper (those consequences and more which have all now come to pass) that question should be revisited and this time the correct answer should be chosen and prosecuted.

Existential threats demand drastic action.

"I still don't see any indication that Romney will be significantly better than Obama with respect to policy to Islamic interests."

I disagree. I believe it's all based on how each man leans towards islam. Obama is either a closet muslim, or one who leans towards it. Romney is not.

Obama's goal is to weaken America. Romney may have other goals, but it is definitely NOT to weaken America.

Stick it in the eye of oil despots...develop marijuana for industrial use, including your car...Any nation can become energy independent, or nearly so by growing and refining pot for industrial and medicinal uses...Yes, some people would smoke it, but is that not a good trade off for oil wars and blood for oil?

Encouraging news, however, it's only a small part of all that needs to be done, in order to diffuse Islam's political agenda. Immigration and energy self sufficiency, tops the list. This means repealing and or modifying the rediculous liberal envioronmental laws now on the books.

Right now, we need to focus on removing this aberration of an American president.

Will Mitt continue the degrading and insulting Iftar ramadan dinners? That['s where high gov officials celebrate our enemies...shake their hands and pat them on the back...That is just plain disgusting...

Let a Saudi Muslim tell it like it is.

I found this PRICELESS Video on MEMRI:

Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi:

Progress for Arab and Islamic World Can Only Come from Western Civilization

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3547.htm

When will we learn?

If Romney becomes president and I hope he will, we'll see the beginning of a political shift. Other industrial nations will continue funding evil, that's true but first of all we can focus on South Sudan and buy their oil, the Chinese are supporting that new nation a lot, now. Secondly we've got to get independent of oil and rely on other energy sources.

Muslims are incapable of doing any research, they won't find any other energy sources when the oil flow has stopped. That will happen in a few years time, nothing lasts forever. Then the Arabs will be reduced to the miserable life they lived before oil was discovered.

I wonder how dhimmi Chris Christie and fellow Islamophile (lover of Islam) Grover(grovelling) Norquist will react?

Energy independence isn't only about oil. Another source of energy to consider is coal. The U.S. has immense coal reseves, but the enviro-left is determined to prevent their use, eliminating jobs in the coal industry and damaging our balance-of-payments situation.
We already export coal, but we could export a lot more if the enviro-left would allow it. Earlier this year, a major coal export project was ready to go: coal mined in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and transported by rail to a new loading facility on the lower Columbia River would be loaded onto Chinese ships and exported to China. The Environmental Impact Statement for the new port facility had already been reviewed and approved. But then the greenies filed a new lawsuit, claiming that the "global environmental impact" had not been considered, i.e. the pollution from the trains carrying the coal to the coast and from the ships carrying it across the ocean. The court agreed and ordered the project halted until new studies had been made. At which point, the Chinese said forget it, we'll buy coal elsewhere. So jobs, taxes, and export revenue all lost because we're concerned about ships' exhaust in mid-Pacific.
Another problem is coke -- the refined coal used in steel-making. The U.S. has major reserves of coking coal, which the enviros do not let us use, because the EPA has not appoved a new coke-oven in decades. The result is that gradually, as old ovens become unrepairable, we produce less coke domestically, and import more. The results: more jobs, revenues, and taxes lost, and a larger balance-of-payments deficit. Maybe some sharp lawyers could use the Columbia River coal "global pollution" argument in reverse: building a new coke oven in the U.S. would reduce the "global pollution" by eliminating all the pollution from ships hauling the coke across the oceans.

@LemonLime I've debunked all of your points regarding Muhammad being a pedophile, your welcome to check it out. I'd like to put a stop this old disgusting debate. Check it out here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/jihad-genocide-dreams-from-egyptian-professor-by-next-year-allah-willing-israel-will-be-annihilated.html

The USA will be irrelevant by 2020 anyway, especially 2050. Both China and India are set to become the world's largest economies by that time so the Muslim nations would kindly tell Romney to fuck off and export to Asian countries like China, India, Malaysia etc instead of western countries.

Russia would do nothing of consequence. She has her own oil, and Saudi Arabia's biggest export is actually a great threat to her (wahabism). China is another story, but as long as China and Russia don't act as a team, China would not dare to interfere.
Actually, Kissinger was a spot on; moreover, Saudi Arabia has declared a war on the western civilisation a long time ago (since Mohamed), so there is no reason not to pick up the gauntlet.
The USA and NATO are more or less out in the open with their efforts to dismember Russia and take control of her riches using foot-soldiers of the Boris Yeltsin, Pussy Riot range of types. If they can manifest their enmity towards Russia openly, why not manifest the same towards Saudi Arabia? We should be in a state of war with any country that dares to call itself Islamic. Of course in that case, having Russia as a close and dear ally would be a great help. Unfortunately, this seems out of question for the average westerner, so, let the chaos continue..

D points out:

"Using the 570 CE Arabia social definition he would also NOT be considered a pedophile.
Anyhow according to one of Islam's most respected scholars and the founder of the Shafi mathab (school of thought):
"It should be noted that Shafa'i and his companions stated: It is mustahab (preferred) for fathers and grandfathers not marry off the virgin until she reaches puberty and they ask her consent, lest she end up in a marriage she dislikes."

Muslim morales are still in the 6th century...and what happens if the young Muslim virgin refuses the marriage or decides to choose her own husband?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/iran-hundreds-of-girls-under-age-10-married.html

Are you people so desperate that you rush to believe a leader that's more naive about Islam than the incumbent?

It's a given that Romney would be more supportive of Israel than Obama, since he is not ideologically motivated against Western civilisation. But these are token gestures of defiance against the scourge since his political DNA will ultimately guide him along the path of least resistance, which is 'honourable' capitulation.

Unless and until the savagery of Islam can no longer hide behind politically correct infidel guilt and legally enforced tolerance, we will continue to be led by the nose via the 'moral high ground' towards dhimmitude.

CONGRESSMAN ALLEN WEST CO-SPONSORS THE OPEN FUEL STANDARD ACT, A WAY TO BRING DOWN THE PRICE OF GAS AND BREAK OPEC's POWER OVER THE U.S. TRANSPORT SECTOR:

By asking your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to help pass the bill H.R. 1687 -- the Open Fuel Standard Act -- you do something very practical to resist sharia and jihad.

The bill currently has 27 Republican and Democratic co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Allen West! Get your rep to co-sponsor it too! H.R.1687 is also supported by Brigitte Gabriel.

The Open Fuel Standard Act (HR 1687) would require a rapidly increasing percentage of new cars sold in the U.S. to include a small change that would cost $100 a car. The fix would allow cars to run on various fuels and any mix of fuels (including methanol, ethanol, bio-diesel, or gasoline). The fix would break OPEC's power over the price of transport fuel and drive down the price of gas. It would create price competition among fuels and increasingly allow drivers to choose at the pump which fuel they want to buy. The Open Fuel Standard Act (HR 1687) is supported by a coalition of strange bedfellows who normally might not agree with each other: former national security officials, environmentalists, military bigwigs, evangelicals.

To see why to support the Open Fuel Standard Act (HR 1687), check out this video featuring Frank Gaffney, Robert McFarlane, James Woolsey, Anne Korin, and others:

America's Fuel Choice: Breaking Oil's Monopoly on the Transport Sector

And check out this website: http://www.setamericafree.org

Set America Free is a coalition including Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy; former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane (under Ronald Reagan); former CIA head James Woolsey (under Bill Clinton); former secretary of Energy Admiral James Watkins; former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James Lyons; Orson Swindle, Former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and Vietnam POW; and others.

See also this website: http://www.openfuelstandard.org

You can contact your representative to support the Open Fuel Standard Act (H.R. 1687) by email if you go here:

http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/contact-congress

But a thousand times more effective than email is to telephone your representative.

1) Click here to get your representative's phone number:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

2) When you get to that website, just put your zipcode in the box, hit enter, then images of your representative (and your two senators) will appear.

3) Then click on your representative's picture, and several tabs will appear, including a "contact" tab.

4) Click on the contact tab and you'll see phone numbers for your representative.

If you telephone, politely ask the name of the staffer who handles flex fuel issues or energy issues, then ask to speak to that staffer. Politely tell the staffer you support passage of the Open Fuel Standard Act (HR 1687).

And have a look at this page: How to Influence Your Representative.

Some useful articles:

Why You Should Support the Open Fuel Standard Even if You Are Against Mandates in Principle

Question: Shouldn't We Keep Government Out of This and Let Market Forces Determine What Happens?

Does a Federal Open Fuel Standard Violate Free Market Principles?

Ok, D, for the sake of argument, I'll leave out any claim of prepubescence in the following questions I ask you. Kindly answer each of the three questions with a yes or no, if you have the courage.

D said,

Whether or not I agree with someone marrying a 9 year old today in 2012 is all down to the norm in my own culture and society. However I am not going to judge someone for something they did over a thousand years ago "using my own relative present day culture".

1) Are you saying there is no right or wrong on the issue, and that right and wrong on this question are totally relative to the "norms" in whatever culture you are in? Is that what you are saying? Yes or no.

2) Or are you saying that the 50+ year old Muhammad's example in consummating marriage with 9-year-old Aisha is no longer the right example to follow today in the Muslim world? Assume 9-year-old Aisha had reached "puberty" according to Islamic law's definition. Is Muhammad's example in consummating with her no longer the right example today? Yes or no.

3) When nowadays a 50-year-old male Muslim consummates marriage with a 9 year old girl Muslim who has reached "puberty" as defined by Islamic law, would you condemn that consummation of marriage? Yes or no.

Response to Wayne R

I stand by my position that one of the major fundamental things fueling Islamic mischief in the last hundred years is their gargantuan oil wealth.
And the quickest, most effective and direct way of ending almost all of the Islamic depredation we struggle against here at JW is to seize the Arab oil.

Wayne R brings up an important consideration, the reaction of Russia and China.

Russia has no love for Islam, on the contrary, Russia has suffered at the hands of Islam.
Remember Beslan? Or the Serbian losses to the Muslims? Or the first Afgan war, the loss of which helped bring down the Soviet Union? Or the conflict in Chechnya which has been going on for over twenty years? Or the historic conflicts between White Christian Russia and Islam which have been going on for fourteen hundred years?

Neither does China have any love for Islam. Do you think the Chinese would allow thousands of years of Chinese culture to be supplanted by totalitarian Islam?

Yes, the West would have to reach an agreement with Russia and China, but it would be to the advantage of Russia, China and the West to be rid of Islam.
And Russia minus Communism is not a fundamental threat to the West.
On the contrary, Russia has made great contributions to Western Civilization.
Russia is a natural ally of the West, in fact they are largely the same people and any political differences can be worked out by normal diplomatic means.

So the seizure of the Arab oil should be done jointly by the West, Russia and China. Far from being a cause of WWIII it would benefit all three and be the beginning of a world of peace and progress without Islam.

Even assuming a hostile Russia, Henry Kissinger has thought through this possibility over thirty years ago and his analysis is probably as true today as it was then.
Please read this PDF document from Harper's Magazine, 1975 by Henry Kissinger to see where American policy went off the tracks.
Henry Kissinger - Seizing Arab Oil
www.thefez.net/etc/articles/Harpers_SeizingArabOil_Kissinger.pdf

As to your statement "We do not have the right to take over anyone that has not attacked us"
FIRST, they have attacked us.
The oil embargo of 1973 was an act of war and it was a slow motion existential threat to Western Civilization.
It was an act similar to what the Americans did to cut off Japan's access to oil and other natural resources that propelled Japan into war against the United States in WWII.
As I said before, when the Arabs attacked us with their oil embargo in 1973, the US could have responded in kind, but our leadership decided to surrender and submit to Islam. America's surrender to Islam in 1975 and Europe's surrender to Islam shortly after WWII ( read Eurabia ) is the policy decision that has resulted in most of the problems we have with Islam today. Every other insane policy of our government that we complain about today is just the unfolding of and the working out of the logical consequence of those flawed policies that were adopted by the West shortly after WWII.

SECOND, if the Arabs had used their oil wealth in the same way as any other civilized country used it's natural resources, then perhaps they could keep their oil.
BUT... the Arabs have used their oil money as a weapon of war against Western Civilization, they've forfeited their right to keep that oil.
They've used it to blackmail Europe into allowing the massive civilian Muslim invasion of Europe.
They've used it to bribe Western politicians at the highest levels to go against the wishes of their own American and European populations.
They've used it to influence our own educational system and to buy up large parts of our news and information systems and turn them into Muslim propaganda outlets.
They've used their oil money to fund terrorist Jihad throughout the world.
They used it to spread Wahabism by funding Islamic organizations and building mosques throughout the world.
And on and on and on...

Further, I advocate that we strike at the root of the problem, Islamic oil wealth - so much of anti-jihad activity is politically correct half measures, trying to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, nibbling at the edges, burka bans and anti-mosque marches, the selective enforcement of our own morality against us but never against Islam.
And do you know why so much of the resistance to Islam is so half-hearted? Because "people like me scare you", people like me who want you to stop making deals with the Devil, stop negotiating, stop thinking that there is an easy way out of the struggle against Islam, stop thinking that there is such a thing as "moderate Islam". Face the truth.

People can't face the truth, it's harsh and might require some effort and sacrifice. They'd rather lie to themselves that Islam is just a religion like any other, deserving of respect, if only we are nice to them or accomodate them or go along with their latest little demands then they'll like us and not cause any more trouble.

You say "people like me scare you", Oh! But Islam doesn't scare you? An Islamic Iran that brags that they are going to kill ninety percent of the American population with an EMP weapon, as soon as they get their hands on a nuclear device. And exterminate all the Jews in the world? An Islam that some say is responsible for 270 million deaths from fourteen hundred years of Islamic conquests?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWEYyyzykbU

Please read this PDF document from Harper's Magazine, 1975 by Henry Kissinger to see where American policy went off the tracks.
Henry Kissinger - Seizing Arab Oil
His analysis of the problem of Islam is as accurate today as it was thirty seven years ago.
www.thefez.net/etc/articles/Harpers_SeizingArabOil_Kissinger.pdf

When a candidate, like Obama, represents the abysmally absolute nadir -- at a point even lower than Ralph Nader, a rock bottom so hadal it wouldn't have been sunken enough even for T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock's pair of ragged claws -- then even someone as unsatisfactory as Romney, by sheer comparison (and for no other reason), soars high in the clear blue stratosphere of sunny excellence.

D has left the building.

Thank Allah these jinn-trolls don't have the indefatigable stamina of a Daffy Duck.