Considering the strong energy sector history revealed on the resumes of both President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, it comes as no surprise they are both lobbying hard for the rapid expansion of oil and gas exploration and distribution.

While the last administration worked hard to declare every forested acre in North America a national monument, off limits to commercial development, we already see Washington’s new dynamic duo pushing to develop Alaskan gas resources and build new pipelines in the Rockies and under the Gulf of Mexico.

It would be easy for us to wax cynical and claim the administration’s energy position is a payback to their friends in the industry, much the same way that Bill Clinton repaid his Indonesian and Chinese friends in the coal industry by shutting down Utah production of clean-burning domestic coal.

Before we pick up brickbats and start hurling them, we may want to consider that those at the helm of the ship of state may also be privy to information not available to us mortal American peons.

We are aware of the California energy crisis and we’ll have more on that in a moment.

But if hostilities commence in the Middle East, as many commentators and some of our good sources suggest may be likely in the short run, the price of a gallon of gasoline could shoot up faster than an Iraqi Scud.

Unless we have a Plan B standing by, the United States could be looking at rapid inflation, insufficient resources to fuel our economy and, perhaps, economic collapse.

President Clinton was willing to draw down our strategic oil reserves just to save consumers a few cents at the pump, last fall.

Now, what will happen to America when emergency supplies are truly needed?

Another dynamic is at work in the so-called energy crisis, now being felt on the West Coast. Information we received from noted scholar and researcher Dr. Stanley Monteith, host of the Radio Liberty program, indicates the shortfall and price backlash may have resulted from corruption and collusion between industry and governmental officials.

Monteith notes that the California deregulation procedure followed step-by-step the unsuccessful British model that took a well-regulated, efficient power grid and turned it into an out-of-control money machine.

Sounding a conspiratorial note, Monteith claims the liberal governments of Britain and California may have adopted policies intended to fail, allowing suppliers to sell their electricity for obscene profits, in California’s case up to 900 percent, and then forcing the state to step in and buy out the utilities. Ultimately, the citizens will be stuck with both higher electric bills and tax rates as they fund public bond issues for the purchase of the energy infrastructure that could take up to 20 years to repay.

Of course, building additional power generating stations could increase the supply of energy to the point where it could overtake demand nationwide and drive the cost down. We recommend nuclear energy, the cheap, abundant, affordable energy source that could provide all the power we need for the next 500 years.  Nuclear power is the safest, most environmentally sound supply source known to man.  It produces no CO2, so it cannot contribute to global warming.  And nuclear power emits no suflur or waste byproducts into the ether.

Through the years though, nuclear power has gotten an undeserved bad rap from the people who should appreciate it the most.

In order for such plants to be built, today, the attention of a few thousand environmentalists would have to be diverted, temporarily.

Hmmm. Would anyone like to join me in a spotted owl soufflé?

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