Only two weeks into a new presidency is probably not the best of times to raise the question of moral character, particularly when that president is anyone but Bill Clinton.

Some may say that George W. Bush deserves a "honeymoon," time to acclimate himself to the job and to let his staffers acquaint themselves with the buttons and gears powering the machinery of government.

Personally, I would love to give him all the time he needs. But events already transpiring in California and the Middle East may not allow President Bush that luxury.

Those who have scanned the president’s resume realize that "W." like his father before him has made his family fortunes in the energy sector. Oil has been the investment of choice and several petroleum companies have been very, very good to the Bush clan.

With OPEC already cutting supplies and the very real risk of regional hostilities breaking out any day in the Middle East, one must ask the question of what that might mean to America. We can be certain that several prestigious Washington think tanks and intelligence analysts have already been providing our new president all the information he requires to stay abreast of the latest news, trends and options.

Morality, however, is and has always been a function of choice. When the very real temptation of dwindling petroleum supplies, skyrocketing prices and profits for family trusts and/or friends is presented to the President, will he do the right thing? Will he place the interests of America first?

The energy crisis has already come to America. All you need to do is pick up the front page of the New York Times or any California paper to read about the West Coast energy alerts, blackouts and rationing plans proposed by a Democratic governor and legislature that have spent years pandering to their environmentalist constituencies and are only now paying the piper.

At last report, California Governor Gray Davis had negotiated the best price possible with wholesale electrical suppliers to keep the juice flowing throughout the Golden State. That new price is $69 per megawatt hour…almost three times the previous price ceiling imposed on power suppliers by state mandate.

What makes the California power situation so unusual and bleak is that this shortage happened in the winter, when electrical demand is typically at its weakest. Imagine, if you will, what the picture might look like this summer when air conditioners are turned on from San Diego to Seattle. Toss in a drought like they’ve been experiencing out west in recent months and things become grim, indeed.

And what makes anyone think this problem can be isolated to the West Coast? One source tells me that hundreds of dams across the country used to help generate power have been torn down to please "green" activists.

Environmentalists hate coal-fired plants. They generally can live with oil or gas-fired plants, so long as they’re not built in their backyards. But the fact is…it makes no sense to generate large blocks of electrical power from a non-renewable source of energy like oil or gas. Those precious supplies are needed to keep our cars running.

So what happens if bickering turns to serious battle in the Middle East? We already import 60 percent of all oil consumed in America. If we find ourselves facing another major oil embargo, how will all the petroleum and natural gas-fired electrical plants find the fuel sources they need to keep the turbines turning when motorists need every drop of gas just to get to work and back?

Will George W. Bush turn his back on the Japanese and demand that our entire stock of Alaskan crude be used for domestic purposes? Would Japan pull its investments from Wall Street in return and stage a financial Pearl Harbor?

Can all of this be averted?

Yes…possibly…if people in power would only wake up, shake off 30 years of bad science and realize that nuclear energy can provide the affordable answers America so desperately seeks.

These days, it’s hard to get anyone to take you seriously when you mention nuclear energy. A whole generation of middle aged adults and their children have been programmed by "The China Syndrome" and liberal educators to distrust the atom. Ignoring safety statistics that provide the nuclear industry a "glowing" endorsement, they ignore a host of basic truths.

• We have sufficient nuclear fuel from decommissioned nuclear weapons to meet all our electrical generation needs for the next 500 years.
• The new generation of nuclear power plants contains redundant failsafe systems to prevent serious mishaps.
• Nuclear power is environmentally friendly. It operates without the smokestack emissions so common to most other forms of power generation.
• Once a nuclear plant is up and operating, it offers power generation with fixed, predictable and affordable costs to consumers.

We have a problem. We have a solution. But the question is…do we have a President who is man enough to confront two powerful special interest groups.

It should be easy for Bush to ignore ranting environmentalists. They hate his guts, anyway.

But what about the petroleum industry? Oil runs through the Bush family veins. Petroleum money helped put him into power.

Will George W. Bush do the right thing for America and cast a favorable eye toward nuclear power even if it means alienating those closest to him within his own personal "circle of power?"

Stay tuned…

4.9¢ long distance from WebToday: Online sign-up takes 30 seconds