It recently became public that there has been an orchestrated public relations smear campaign by Grocery Manufacturing Association (GMA), working in tandem with a highly-paid "K Street" lobbying firm, to discredit ethanol as a viable alternative renewable fuel. The smear campaign attempted to blame it for high food prices and causing people to go hungry. To put the issue in context, we must first remember that our renewable fuels programs have been initiated to help reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil.



I also have serious questions as to whether this smear campaign was also a diversionary tactic to misdirect the attention onto farmers and renewable fuels and away from the fact that many food processors are making and reporting record profits. Several members of GMA have reported increased profits of well over 50 percent in the past quarter when compared to previous quarters and/or the same quarter a year ago. Some of those reported increases in corporate profits exceed 80 percent at a time America's working families are struggling with rapid and debilitating inflationary surges in energy, food and related living expenses.



It is nothing new for one business group to spread misinformation about another in order to increase their profits. It is also nothing new for one group to try to influence congressional legislation or governmental regulations in order to profit from that influence. What is very different in this case is the possible consequences of these most recent acts by some state leaders, members of congress and business members of the GMA.



For every dollar spent on this smear campaign of misinformation our nation slips further from domestically produced renewable fuels and back to our over reliance on imported oil. This dastardly campaign not only lines the pockets of the food processing executives, it actually sends more money to countries that do not share America's values. Some of that money goes to the countries the 9/11 hijackers came from. Some of that money goes to countries from which support is provided for insurgents and terrorists fighting and killing American solders in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Referring to our dependence and continued purchase of oil from countries hostile to America, R. James Woolsey, former National Security Advisor, has stated "we are funding our enemy."



Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution lists three treasonous acts, of which one is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. I believe providing money is "aid and comfort." I believe Benedict Arnold caused fewer American solders to die than will those attacking renewable, domestic fuels. I would welcome an explanation from any of the Presidential candidates or any credible news media personality why this is not a treasonous act. The real Patriots I know prefer to advance and promote Midwestern ethanol and biodiesel, not Middle Eastern oil!