A powerful idea is spreading through America. It is a call to this generation to take action and decide the course of history by declaring and fighting for American Energy Independence.

Following the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the idea of energy independence captured the imagination of the American people. Then during the 1980's, increased automobile fuel efficiency and new oil discoveries created a surplus of oil on the world market, and America’s enthusiasm for energy independence faded into memory. Now, more than thirty years after the oil embargo, re-awakened by the terrorist attack on 9/11 and war in the Middle East, the idea of American energy independence has returned with a vengeance, becoming a powerful force shaping the political views of a new generation of Americans.

Oil is no longer viewed as just another commodity. In the minds and hearts of the American people, oil has become associated with terrorism, political corruption, corporate greed, and global warming.

The 1973 Arab oil embargo interrupted the flow of oil causing severe gasoline shortages and long lines at gas stations. The embargo exposed America's growing oil dependence and gave the American people their first warning of the price they would pay for continued dependence on imported oil. The 1979 Iranian revolution interrupted the flow of oil again — this was the second warning, signaling the urgent need for American Energy Independence. The 1991 Persian Gulf War was a military intervention to stop one dictator from taking control of Middle East oil — this was the third and most severe warning. Failure to make energy independence the nation’s highest priority after the Gulf War demonstrated that the United States did not have the political will to free itself from dependence on foreign oil.

September 11, 2001 was a preview of America's future – one possible future.

America stands at a crossroad, a choice between two very different futures. One choice leads to increased dependence on foreign oil and a future dominated by terrorism and war. The other choice leads to American energy independence and a world economy that is no longer desperate for oil.

Today, the world consumes over 80 million barrels of oil every day (over 30 billion barrels per year); the USA alone consumes over 20 million barrels per day (over 7 billion barrels per year). At $100 per barrel, the global petroleum industry is a three trillion dollar a year business. Development of alternative energy to free the world from oil dependence will create a seismic shift within the economic foundation of the world.

Oil is a natural source of energy, but it is not the only source of energy. With the help of new technology, America’s energy needs can be obtained from sources other than petroleum.  American technology has put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars. It seems reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also develop environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America from oil dependence.

It is time for America to lead the development of new energy technology that will free the USA and the entire world from dependence on oil. Freedom from oil dependence will cut-off the flow of oil money to the Middle East and put an end to the financial support of militant Islam.

The global expansion of militant Islam is financed by Middle East oil wealth. In the U.S. oil means gasoline. Every time you fill your gas tank, some of the money will find its way into the hands of Islamic extremists who are planning the next terrorist attack.

Strength and National Security through Energy Independence

Future wars could be prevented if everyone who has taken a stand against the war in Iraq would turn their passion toward the goal of American Energy Independence. Standing against war is not enough – Standing together for Energy Independence will create a positive political force and a shared national dream.

Is there anyone who still cannot see the connection between the flow of oil money into the Middle East and the flow of terrorism out of the Middle East?

“The meteoric rise of oil revenues in the 20th century meant a new era for Islam; oil revenues were the catalyst that converted passive resentment into Islamic Terrorism...” Nexus—OIL and AL Qaeda By Frank H. Denton, Ph.D, U.S. Foreign Service (Retired).

“The rise of terrorism by militant Islam against the United States and the West coincided with the rise in oil prices of 1979-80 and the subsequent transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the West to Muslim countries.” – Max Singer, senior fellow, The Hudson Institute.

How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network:

“Starting in the late 1980s—after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan—Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members.
The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement...”
The Saudi Connection By David E. Kaplan  U.S.News & World Report

“Exactly how much the Saudis have spent to spread Wahhabism is unclear.” David D. Aufhauser, a former Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee that estimates went north of $75 billion. “The total spent annually is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion,” he said.

Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic movement that has its roots in the extreme Islamic Takfiri ideology, which is a religious belief that encourages its followers to use violence as a means to achieve their goals.

The war against Islamic terrorism cannot be won without cutting off the flow of oil money to the Middle East

Thomas Friedman  The New York Times  Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist

“No matter what happens in Iraq, we cannot dry up the swamps of authoritarianism and violent Islamism in the Middle East without also drying up our consumption of oil—thereby bringing down the price of crude. A democratization policy in the Middle East without a different energy policy at home is a waste of time, money and, most important, the lives of our young people.  We need a president...”

“At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil. For the very resource that has fueled our way of life over the last hundred years now threatens to destroy it if our generation does not act now and act boldly.  We know what the dangers are here. We know that our oil addiction is jeopardizing our national security—that we fuel our energy needs by sending $800 million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world. We know that oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq.” 
U.S. Senator Barack Obama   Speech on Energy Policy:  Watch the Video   or   Read the Text
May 07, 2007   The Detroit Economic Club

“Al Qaeda must revel in the irony that America is effectively helping to fund both sides of the war.... As we sacrifice blood and treasure, some of our gas dollars flow to the fanatics who build the bombs, hatch the plots, and carry out attacks on our soldiers and citizens.... The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East helps sustain the conditions on which terrorists prey.”
U.S. Senator John McCain   Speech on Energy Policy:  Watch the Video   or   Read the Text
April 23, 2007    Center for Strategic and International Studies

Energy: The Most Important Issue of 2008 — Speech given by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on December 18, 2007 at the Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election.
     “Today, I would state unequivocally, that energy security and the economic and environmental issues closely associated with it should be the most important topics of the 2008 Presidential election. I say this deliberately, notwithstanding the existence of extremely important immediate concerns such as the war in Iraq and the performance of the American economy, as well as persistent public policy struggles that have confronted us for decades, such as deficit reduction, health care, and social security. I say this even in the context of my own long standing evangelism related to non-proliferation and arms reduction, issues which I believe have not diminished in importance.
     “Three factors lead me to the conclusion that energy is the most vital topic of this Presidential election:
     “First, energy is the issue with the widest gulf between what is required to make our nation secure and what is likely to be achieved through the inertia of existing programs and Congressional proposals. As such, it is the issue on which meaningful progress most depends on the great intangible in American public policymaking – the application of dramatic, visionary, and sustained Presidential leadership.
     “Congress and private enterprise can make evolutionary energy advancements, but revolutionary national progress in the energy field probably is dependent on presidential action. Our energy dependence is perpetuated by a lack of national will and focus. Only the President has the visibility to elevate a cause to national status, and only the President can leverage the buying power, regulatory authority, and legislative leadership of an administration behind solving a problem that is highly conducive to political procrastination and partisanship.
     “Second, transformational energy policies are likely to be a requirement for achieving our economic and social aspirations here at home. In an era when exploding global demand for energy creates high prices and fears of scarcity, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to underperform. Our ability to address social security, health care, education, and overall budget problems will be heavily encumbered over both the short and the long run if we do not mitigate our energy import dependence. Almost any scenario for recession will be deepened by high energy costs. Moreover, many of the most severe recession scenarios involve sustained energy disruptions due to terrorism, war, embargo, or natural disaster.
     “Third, energy is the underlying condition that exacerbates almost every major foreign policy issue. We pressure Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur, but we find that the Sudanese government is insulated by oil revenue and oil supply relationships. We pressure Iran to stop its uranium enrichment activities, yet key nations are hesitant to endanger their access to Iran’s oil and natural gas. We try to foster global respect for civil society and human rights, yet oil revenues flowing to authoritarian governments are often diverted to corrupt or repressive purposes. We fight terrorism, yet some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year on oil imports are diverted to terrorists. We give foreign assistance to lift people out of poverty, yet energy-poor countries are further impoverished by expensive energy import bills. We seek options that would allow for military disengagement in Iraq and the wider Middle East, yet our way of life depends on a steady stream of oil from that region. American national security will be at risk as long as we are heavily dependent on imported energy.”

The final 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have voiced their support for energy independence. For this reason, American voters will choose a pro-energy independence candidate for President in 2008. However, voters should understand that Republicans and Democrats define energy independence differently.

While some Republicans reject the idea of energy independence, most Republicans acknowledge and accept the need for energy security; indeed, many Republicans are passionate about it. Republican candidates who advocate energy independence are talking about economic and global energy security. When Republican candidates speak of energy independence they are campaigning for expanding oil production in Alaska and opening the oil fields off the coast of California (an oil resource potentially larger than Iraq). Republicans want all of America's natural resources available for energy production, including all federal lands that hold oil, natural gas, coal and oil shale deposits. The estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale located in the United States is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Republicans also support the development of technology to produce coal-to-liquid transportation fuels—an American resource that is greater than all of the oil in the Middle East.

On the other hand, when Democrats speak of energy independence they are usually talking about independence from any and all fossil fuels as well as independence from nuclear energy. Democrats tend to play down or deny the threat of oil financed Islamic militancy, preferring instead to focus on the threat of Global Warming.

It is important to acknowledge that energy independence and global warming are separate issues. American voters need to understand the relative priority. Global Warming is a sustainability issue that must be solved as the world progresses toward complete global modernization. In contrast, global oil dependence is an immediate threat, a clear and present danger. Metaphorically speaking, the threat of greenhouse gas emissions is like the threat of cancer from prolonged cigarette smoking; In contrast, the threat of oil financed terrorism is like a coiled rattlesnake immediately on the path in front of a day-dreaming hiker.

OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) produces about 40% of the world’s oil today, which translates to OPEC getting 40 cents on every dollar paid for oil anywhere in the world. Current OPEC members are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela.  All are Islamic countries except Venezuela which has partnered with Iran.

In 2007, over 700 billion dollars flowed into OPEC from oil hungry countries around the world. How much of that money was given to support the worldwide advance of Islamic terrorism? With rising oil prices, OPEC revenue is expected to exceed one trillion dollars in 2008.

It doesn’t matter where oil comes from. If the oil comes from a well in Wyoming, California, Texas, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or the North Sea it doesn’t make any difference because oil is a global commodity. The price is the same for everyone in the world. Demand anywhere increases demand everywhere. So it is always true that OPEC gets 40 cents on every dollar paid for oil anywhere in the world. It averages out to that fact.

Islamic terrorism, as a global threat to civilization, cannot sustain itself without the massive oil revenue that finances it. (That does not mean their feelings and beliefs will not sustain, it just means they will have limited influence without the oil wealth.) Islamic militancy is emboldened by the perception of power and dominance that Islam derives from the world’s dependence on oil — oil that the world must get from Arab countries. Eliminate world oil dependence and the Islamic extremists will be deflated psychologically.

Ronald Reagan is credited for defeating Communism without firing a shot; by economically isolating and suffocating the Soviet Union, while at the same time enticing their leaders and people toward freedom. In a similar way, initiating action toward achieving global independence from petroleum (as a source of energy) will lead to the defeat of Islamic terrorism.

Energy Independence vs. Energy Security

Is there a difference between independence and security? To find the answer, let’s look at the question in the light of something we are familiar with.

Question:  What is the difference between National Independence and National Security?

Answer:  Independence establishes sovereignty; whereas security defends sovereignty.

If sovereignty is lost, then what is there to secure?

Definitions:

• Sovereignty: “freedom from outside interference and the right to self-government.”
• Independence: “freedom from dependence on or control by another person, organization, or state.”
• Security: “the assurance that something of value will not be taken away.”

  —Microsoft Encarta®

How can we apply this understanding to the current energy crisis?

1. The high price of oil is a National Security issue because it threatens to take away something of great value to all Americans — our standard of living and our way of life.
2. Oil has become a threat to National Independence because global oil resources are controlled by persons, organizations and foreign states upon which Americans have become dependent for their supply of oil — directly and indirectly.
3. America’s oil dependence comes with a price much higher than that which is measured in dollars; in exchange for oil, Americans have unwittingly given up their “freedom from outside interference” — Americans have traded their Sovereignty for cheap gasoline — a commodity that is no longer cheap.

#3 sound’s like the behavior of a drug addict, doesn’t it?

Addicted: “physiologically or mentally dependent on a harmful drug.”   —Microsoft Encarta®

America is addicted to oil

“America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. ...we are on the threshold of incredible advances.” —U.S. President George W. Bush 2006 State of the Union Address

References:
1973 oil embargo
1979 energy crisis
1991 Persian Gulf War
2001 September 11^th USA
2003 Iraq war - In Progress
The Hubbert Peak for World Oil Production
World Oil Market and Oil Price Chronologies: 1970 - 2006
World Oil Price Chronologies and Projection: 2006 - 2009

Recommended reading:
Islam and oil By Ron Bengtson, Founder, AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
Our Energy Challenge By Nobel Laureate Richard E. Smalley
Nexus—OIL and AL Qaeda By Frank H. Denton, PhD
The Cost of American Energy Independence By Ron Bengtson

Online Articles:
Addicted to Oil — Discovery Channel documentary, reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist, Thomas L. Friedman
Saudi Time Bomb — A PBS investigation
Ending the Oil Era — An interview with former CIA director James Woolsey
The Saudi Connection — David E. Kaplan “How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network”
Islam’s political insurgency in Europe — Daniel Strieff
Saudi textbooks preach intolerance, hate — Lisa Myers
Energy for America's Future—Security for the 21st Century
President Bush — Demonstration of Alternative Fuel Automobiles
A solution to the energy crisis has been under our nose for decades — Elizabeth Spiers, CNNMoney.com
President Bush Discusses Energy at St. Louis Renewable Energy Conference — “We need to diversify away from oil for economic reasons. We live in a global world. When the demand for oil goes up in China or in India, it causes the price of crude oil to rise and, since we import about 60 percent of the crude oil we use, it causes our price to go up, as well, which means the economy becomes less competitive. And then, of course, there's the national security concern for oil. Why? Well, we get oil from some countries who don't particularly care for us. They don't like what we stand for. They don't like it when we say, for the sake of peace, let us work in a way that we don't develop nuclear weapons, for example.”
How Close Is Iran to Having Nuclear Weapons? — Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Co-founded by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and CNN founder Ted Turner.
Oil Hits $100, Jolting Markets — THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, front page, January 3, 2008
The surging price of oil, from just over $10 a barrel a decade ago to $100 in January 2008, is altering the wealth and influence of nations and industries around the world. The long oil-price boom is posing wrenching challenges for the world's poorest nations, while enriching and emboldening producers in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela. Their increasing muscle has a flip side: a decline of U.S. clout in many parts of the world.
U.S. 'On The Edge' of Recession — Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on February 14, 2008 said the U.S. economy is “clearly on the edge” of a recession. High oil prices are dragging on the economy, but the fact that they haven't done more damage shows its resiliency. Crude oil futures hit above $95 a barrel on February 14, 2008 and went above $100 in early January. Greenspan said he would like to see additional use of electric cars. Nuclear power makes the “most sense” to increase U.S. power generation when all trade-offs are weighed; “We have to use nuclear,” Greenspan said.
$100 oil hurts, just like a recession — CNNMoney.com, March 7, 2008
“U.S. consumers spend an extra $5 billion each year for each $1 increase in the price of crude oil... if oil stays at $100 a barrel for the next 12 months, consumers will have shelled out an extra $100 billion for oil by next year. That's an extra $100 billion not being spent at the mall, mega-mart or multiplex... if oil goes to $115 or $120 a barrel—certainly not an outlandish thought given that crude prices have nearly doubled over the last 12 months—$115 oil, along with worsening conditions in the credit and foreign investment market, could be enough to keep the economy in recession through the first part of 2009.”
Are We Ready for the Next Oil Shock? — FedEx CEO Fred Smith and P.X. Kelley, retired commandant of the Marine Corps and former member of the Joint Chiefs. “Government leadership is absolutely necessary. Many of the most promising solutions on both the demand and supply sides will require decades to mature. Government proposals should align the interests of businesses and individuals with society's goals; for example, tax credits and similar incentives must allow businesses to recover investments and engage in essential long-range planning, and they must account for the high implicit discount rates that consumers apply to future savings. While recent legislation has pointed us in the right direction, bolder action must be taken.”
Oil prices could continue to rise — Shell CEO John Hofmeister says Congress needs to allow more U.S. offshore drilling: “Unless Congress allows expanded drilling on the outer continental shelf of the United States, fuel prices are going to continue to increase... If we don’t bring more oil and gas into the system we’re going to have to pay more and more and more... I’d hate to see prices double and triple what they are today because we failed to explore for more gas and oil. Exploration on the continental shelf was severely curtailed 25 years ago after a major oil spill off Santa Barbara in California... improvements in technology will allow drilling today without the risk of damage to the environment... Here’s the reality, We have a 100-year infrastructure of oil and gas. We have to continue to feed that infrastructure to sustain our economic growth model, to sustain our lifestyle.”
Saudis remain the world’s prime source of terror financing — By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times  April 2, 2008
“Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow... the Saudi government has not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly. Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world.”
How to Avoid Future Iraq Wars —By Kevin McElyea, P.E.

No way out? The barriers to developing an alternative fuels industry are not technical, but social
—By Galen J. Suppes, Ph.D. and Truman S. Storvick, Ph.D.

An Improbable Cure for Oil Addiction Financial Times, May 12, 2006 —By Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

A guarantee from the U.S. Government to purchase Synthetic petroleum made from American coal or oil shale for $50/barrel (if the supplier could not otherwise receive a higher price) would stimulate the largest capital investment in U.S. history

Write your legislators in Congress today and ask them to support federal incentives for the development of Synthetic Liquid Fuels.