Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,
"Two huge utilities pleaded Wednesday for permission to make consumers pay as much as 30 percent more for their electricity, saying the deregulated energy market has left them $9 billion in the red. Governor Gray Davis, . . . said it could be years before consumers get rate relief. 'I think it's going to be a good two years before we can have enough additional supply to balance out demand. When we have that, deregulation may work. . . . But it's clearly not working now. . . . '"
Associated Press, December 28, 2000 
"California businesses are cutting corners, contemplating price increases and bracing for more budget-breaking anguish as the state's energy woes crackle through the economy.
With natural gas bills more than doubling in the past year, the financial pain already is being felt from Central Valley dairy farms to Silicon Valley computer chip plants."
Associated Press, January 2, 2001 
"Grim-faced officials with PG&E and Southern California Edison, who have lobbied for months for a sizable rate boost to stave off bankruptcy, also reacted to the proposal with disappointment.
'Banks will not lend on the basis of this proposed order,' PG&E chairman Robert Glynn told the four members of the commission, predicting that his company will be forced into default on some of its debts within days.
Edison attorney Henry Weissmann went further, saying the plan gave him no choice but to ask the commission to officially excuse his company from its legal obligation to provide power for all its customers, because power suppliers may no longer be willing to sell on credit.
'We are deeply disappointed by the proposed decision,' Weissmann said. 'We are extremely concerned that this decision will lead to shortages of electricity in California and blackouts for our customers.'"
San Jose Mercury News, January 4, 2001. 
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Alphonse Karr, Les Guepes (Janvier, 1849) 
In 1972 the Club of Rome published a report entitled The Limits to Growth which warned:
"If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, . . . the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity." 
Commenting on the report, Roger LeRoy Miller wrote:
"Not too long ago, a group of researchers presented a report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. This well-publicized, widely- read book . . . shows all doubting Thomases that before the year 2100, the world as a system will reach a point where the population can no longer be supported by existing resources. According to the study, sufficient pollution controls, better birth control, and other short-run stop-gap measures will not prevent us from running out of food." 
The concept that the world is overpopulated, running out of natural resources, and facing collapse had a profound impact on the men who covertly rule the world. The following year the Arabs stopped shipping oil to the United States. The public was told that the oil embargo was imposed because we supported Israel during their war with the Arabs earlier that year. The price of oil soared from $5 to $10 a barrel, and the cost of gasoline doubled. Long before our gasoline supplies were exhausted, the media announced there would soon be a serious fuel shortage.  Everyone rushed to fill their car's gas tank, and service stations quickly ran out of fuel. People lined up to get gasoline, but scheduled deliveries didn't arrive. Media pundits discussed the possibility of gasoline rationing and electricity blackouts. Chevron produced a television cartoon designed to persuade the public that the world was running out of fossil fuel. It depicted two dinosaurs lumbering toward a tar pit as a somber voice warned, "There are no more dinosaurs, and soon there will be no more oil." 
The Eastern Establishment (the CFR) controls most media outlets in the United States.  They immediately launched a propaganda campaign to convince people the oil crisis was real, but many of us suspected it was contrived. Since oil tankers can go anywhere they want, why didn't some of them come to America where they could get a high price for their oil? Several radio commentators reported that oil tankers were anchored offshore waiting to transfer their oil to refineries, and some people claimed they had seen gasoline trucks filling tanks at closed gas stations in the middle of the night. Once the higher cost of fossil fuel was widely accepted, the Arabs began shipping oil to the United States again, the gasoline shortage abated, and most people forgot about the fuel crisis of 1973.
Oil companies resumed their exploration of the north slope of Alaska, and soon there was plenty of oil.  The cost remained about $10 a barrel until last year when the Arabs cut production again, and the price of oil promptly climbed to $25 - $30 a barrel. Shortly thereafter WorldNet- Daily ran an article by Charles Smith that claimed the Clinton Administration encouraged the Arabs to cut production to raise the price of oil so Russia, Indonesia, and Mexico (three of the world's major oil producers) could pay the interest they owe our banks.  Could that be true? Does our government really manipulate world events and create crisis situations? The answer to that question should be self-evident. Those who have read Robert Stinnett's book Day of Deceit realize that President Roosevelt manipulated the Japanese government and forced them to attack Pearl Harbor. The 2800 servicemen who perished there were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.  Those who have studied the origin of the Vietnam War know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was contrived.  During the Clinton Administration we saw a number of manipulated situations. Just before Monica Lewinsky was scheduled to testify about her affair with the President, Bill Clinton ordered missile attacks on Pakistan and the Sudan. Just before Congress was about to impeach him, he ordered an air attack on Iraq. When the media began covering Juanita Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton raped her, he ordered Kosovo and Yugoslavia bombed. I am constantly amazed at Bill Clinton's ability to manipulate events for his benefit, and the gullibility of the American people. Our job is to educate the public so they can understand what is happening, and not be deceived. Since there is no valid explanation of the current electricity crisis in California, this, and subsequent, letters will address that subject.
Twenty-four states have announced they will deregulate their electricity markets.  When New York lifted restrictions on power distribution, the public was promised that the cost of electricity would fall. Instead it increased as much as 40%.  When California deregulated electricity we were promised a 10 - 20% reduction in our electric bills. Instead, they doubled. In San Diego, the cost of electric power has quadrupled, and many people are refusing to pay their utility bills.  In January 2001, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) allowed public utilities to increase electricity rates by 9%, but the companies insist they need a 70% increase to recoup their losses.  As I write this letter there are rolling blackouts across California, traffic lights are out, industry is losing $1.7 billion a week, and hospitals and other essential services have been shut down from time to time. Why are we having an energy crisis? The answer to that question will surprise you.
I've read over 100 articles on energy deregulation, but none of them told the whole story. Several writers told part of the story, and by combining their information and accessing other sources, I've discovered the source of our problem. I will reveal what I've found in next month's letter.
To grasp the significance of what is happening, you must understand the part that electricity plays in your daily life. It is essential for industry, production, mining, transportation, communication, farming, food production, heat, refrigeration, air conditioning, and the comforts we enjoy. Electricity drives the machinery that sustains our way of life. Without a reliable, cheap source of power we would soon live at the socio-economic level of Europeans. Could it be there are those who would like to reduce our living standard to that level? 
Everyone agrees that the effort to deregulate electricity in California has been a disaster. On December 28, 2000, the Associated Press reported:
"Two huge utilities pleaded Wednesday for permission to make consumers pay as much as 30 percent more for their electricity, saying the deregulated energy market has left them $9 billion in the red. Governor Gray Davis, . . . said it could be years before consumers get relief. 'I think it's going to be a good two years before we can have enough additional supply to balance out demand. When we have that, deregulation may work . . . . But it's clearly not working now . . . .'" 
Where does electricity come from? It is produced mainly by fossil fuel-burning plants and nuclear power plants. The heat they generate produces steam that runs turbines that produce electricity. Until recently coal and oil burning plants supplied 55% of our power, nuclear reactors 22%, hydroelectric plants 10%, natural gas 9%, and solar and wind power 2%.  Nuclear power could have provided all the cheap, clean energy our country needs, but there has been a well-financed, coordinated effort by environmentalists to block the development of nuclear energy in the United States. When you discover the source of their funding, you will understand why we have an energy crisis today.
Shortly after World War II ended, the Atomic Energy Commission, and a consortium of private investors, set out to harness nuclear energy for commercial use. First they built nuclear reactors, and installed them in submarines that operated for years without refueling. Sailors lived in close proximity to the reactors without harm, so the reactors were obviously safe. Next they began building commercial power plants.  Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is California's largest public utility. The company decided to replace some of its fossil fuel plants with nuclear reactors because they produce power at a fraction of the cost of conventional facilities. Environmental activists tried to block PG&E's effort to find a suitable site, but the company eventually got permission to build a nuclear reactor at Diablo Canyon. The reactor should have been completed in 2 years, and cost $300 million. Instead it cost $5.8 billion and took over 10 years to bring on line because well-trained environmentalists delayed construction, and insisted on unnecessary expenditures.  The activists also attacked PG&E's nuclear facility in the Sacramento area, and forced the utility to close it down long before it was paid for. The state Public Utilities Commission wouldn't let PG&E charge its customers for the unnecessary costs, so the company was forced to carry an excessive debt load. Other public utilities faced similar problems, so they joined together and tried to find a means of getting the public to share their losses. Eventually the companies decided that the best way to share their costs was to deregulate electricity. Their legislation became law in 1996, and it was implemented in 1998.  I will explain what happened next month, but now I must explain who is behind the effort to block nuclear energy.
The Rockefeller family, and the powerful banks they control, have dominated the oil industry in the United States for over a century. They realized that nuclear power threatened their holdings, so they created the environmental movement to oppose it. The movement was initially funded by Laurence Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller's grandson.  Later it was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, other tax-exempt foundations, corporations that interlock with the Rockefeller's vast holdings, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations. David Rockefeller was the chairman of the CFR for 19 years. 
Since the Rockefellers and their friends control most of our media outlets, they set out to convince the public that nuclear reactors are dangerous. They associated them with atom bombs, and told horror stories about the effects of radiation. When an accident occurred at Three Mile Island, Hollywood promptly released the film, The China Syndrome. It was the story of a threatened meltdown at a nuclear power plant. Most people still believe that the incident at Three Mile Island was a disaster, but more people died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died as a result of that accident. 
Allow me to address the issues raised by anti-nuclear activists. They claim:
1. There could be a nuclear explosion at a nuclear reactor similar to the explosion at Chernobyl.
2. Nuclear reactors can melt down, and erode through the earth to China, the so- called "China Syndrome."
3. Nobody knows what to do with spent nuclear fuel. There is no place to store it safely.
I will address each issue in turn.
1. There could be a nuclear explosion at a nuclear reactor similar to the explosion at Chernobyl.
It is impossible to have a nuclear explosion at a nuclear power plant because fuel rods don't contain weapons-grade plutonium. Contrary to everything you have been led to believe, the accident at Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear explosion, it was a steam explosion. During a test at the Chernobyl plant a technician allowed the fuel rods to overheat, the graphite used to cool them caught fire, and a water main broke. The water that flowed onto the reactor was transformed into steam, and the steam blew the tar and gravel roof off the top of the building. Some experts believe that heat and radiation broke water down into oxygen and hydrogen, and produced a secondary hydrogen explosion. I don't know if that happened, but the explosion that occurred dispersed radioactive graphite and radioactive gasses into the atmosphere. That was the source of the nuclear contamination at Chernobyl. The media has done everything possible to convince us that the accident was a nuclear explosion because they want to discourage the use of nuclear energy in the United States. It would be impossible to have a similar tragedy here. Why? Because all of our nuclear plants have a dome-shaped containment building where the nuclear reactor is housed. That structure is engineered to withstand the impact of a speeding locomotive, or a 747, crashing into it. There is no way that nuclear contamination can inadvertently escape from that building, and there has never been a nuclear explosion at a nuclear power plant. The Chernobyl accident occurred because of inadequate plant design, poor planning, and inadequate safeguards. 
2. Nuclear reactors can melt down, and erode through the earth to China; the so- called "China Syndrome."
To my knowledge there has never been a complete nuclear reactor meltdown, although that catastrophe is theoretically possible. Should it occur, molten metal would burn through the floor of the containment vessel, and into the ground. It might burn a few feet, or a few dozen feet into the soil or rock below, but eventually it would be contained by the surrounding earth. There is no safer place for nuclear material than buried in the ground from whence it came. 
3. Nobody knows what to do with spent nuclear fuel. There is no safe place to store it safely.
We are repeatedly told that we don't know how to dispose of used nuclear fuel, but no one ever asks what other countries do with their spent fuel. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, and the Japanese get a majority of their power from that source. Our government recently offered to build a nuclear power plant for North Korea if they would promise to stop developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. How do other countries dispose of their fuel? They reprocess it. Why can't we do the same thing? Because Congress passed a law that prevents private industry from reprocessing nuclear fuel. The fact that most people have never heard that fact mentioned reflects the degree of control that exists today over what the American people think. 
Next month I will tell you about Senator Steve Peace, the California legislator who introduced the legislation that led to the deregulation of electricity in our state. Senator Peace owns part of the studio that produced the cult films Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Killer Tomatoes Strike Back, and Killer Tomatoes Eat France. As absurd as the plots of those movies were, the energy crisis Senator Peace helped create is even more absurd because it is completely unnecessary.  Next month I will also reveal the agenda behind the energy crisis, and what can be done about it.
Exciting things are happening. My 7:00 a.m. PST radio program will soon be heard on shortwave as well as 5 stations, satellite, and the Internet. That should triple our listening audience, and allow me to reach thousands of new listeners. If you are interested in hearing the program, please contact me for information.
I am encouraged by John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General. Phyllis Schlafly backs him, and everyone who has met the Senator speaks highly of him. Initially I was dismayed to learn that almost half the people surveyed opposed his appointment because of what he stands for, but then I realized that half the people favor him because of what he represents. That demonstrates we still have many good people in the United States. As bad as things may seem, we are still better off than any other nation in the world. I don't know whether Senator Ashcroft will be confirmed by the Senate, but you should know by the time you receive this letter.
I will be speaking for the Southwest Radio Church in Dallas on February 10 during the National Religious Broadcasters Convention. I will also be at Hearthstone's booth on Sunday, February 11. If you attend the NRB, please stop by and say hello.
Brotherhood of Darkness is finally available. I believe it will help the public understand the true nature of our spiritual struggle. It is available from Radio Liberty by itself for $12.95 + $2.50 shipping and 7.75% tax in California, or as part of a special offer that includes a video and audiotape for $29.95 + $3.00 shipping and 7.75% tax in California. To obtain either item, call 800-544-8927, or write P.O. Box 13, Santa Cruz, CA, 95063. Discounts are available with bulk orders.
What are we to do? We are to trust in Jesus Christ for our strength and hope:
14 But I trusted in thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my God.
15 My times are in thy hand; deliver me from the hand of mine enemies, and from them that persecute me.
16 Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; save me for thy mercie's sake.
17 Let me not be ashamed, O Lord; for I have called upon thee.
Thank you for your support, and for everything you do to help preserve our republic.
Yours in Christ,
Stanley Monteith, M.D.
1. John Howard, "Utilities Ask For Rate Hike," Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 28, 2000, p.
2. Michael Liedtke, "Rising Energy Costs Jolt State's Economy," Santa Cruz Sentinel, January 2, 2001, p. A1.
3. Steve Johnson et al, "State Panel Expected to OK Temporary Increase Today," San Jose Mercury News, January 4, 2001, A1.
4. John Bartlett, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Little Brown Co, 1980, p. 514.
5. Michael Sanera and Jane S. Shaw, Facts, Not Fear, Regnery Publishing, Inc, Washington, D.C., 1996, p. 28.
6. Roger LeRoy Miller, The Economics of Energy, Wm. Morrow & Co, N.Y., 1974, p.13-14.
7. Ibid., p. 30.
8. Personal recollections of the oil crisis of 1973.
9. Richard Harwood, "Ruling Class Journalists," The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993, p. A 21.
10. Roger LeRoy Miller, op cit., p. 31.
11. Charles Smith, "Clinton Approves Oil-Price Hikes," WorldNetDaily.com, 2000.
12. Robert Stinnett, Day Of Deceit, The Free Press, New York, 2000, p. 8.
13. James L. Greenfield, "The Pentagon Papers," New York Times edition, Bantam Books, 1971, pp. 125, 126.
14. Gregory Palast, "States Deregulate Energy at Their Peril," The New York Times, August 25, 2000, p. A 25.
15. Ibid., See Also: Kirk Johnson, "Why Cost of Power Hasn't Dropped," The New York Times, September 26, 2000, p. A23.
16. John Howard, op cit., See Also, "States Seek New Ways to Harness Electricity," The New York Times, Sept. 15, 2000, p.C4.
17. Steve Johnson, op cit.
18. V.H. Heywood et al, Global Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 773.
19. John Howard, op cit.
20. Henry Lamb, "Energy: A Deepening Dilemma," The DeWeese Report, Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2000, p. 1.
21. Samuel McCracken, The War Against The Atom, Basic Books, New York, 1982.
22. Rebecca Smith et al., "California's PG&E Gropes For A Way Out of Electricity Squeeze," The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2001, pp. A1, A 10.
23. Samuel McCracken, op cit.
24. Larry Abraham and Franklin Sanders, The Greening, Soundview Publications, Atlanta, Georgia, 1993, pp. 91-94.
26. Samuel McCracken, op cit., pp. 24-28, 141-143.
27. Zhores A. Medvedev, The Legacy of Chernobyl, W.W. Norton & Co, New York, 1990, pp. 19, 26, 33.
28. Samuel McCracken, op cit., pp. 11, 20-35, 157, 183.
29. Ibid., pp. 37-41.
30. Tony Perry, "Prospects Dark for Deregulation Architect," L.A. Times, January 3, 2001.
31. King James Bible, Psalm 31: 14-17.