[image: TIADaily.com] <http://www.TIADaily.com>
*TIA Daily* • *October 1, 2009 * The Anti-Industrial Coup It looks like President Obama, facing the failure of his domestic agenda in Congress, is now going to attempt to pull out a victory by threatening Congress with the usurpation of its legislative powers. ------------------------------ *Top News Stories* 1. The Anti-Industrial Coup <#124171b7d2ac78a0_Item+1> 2. Five Minutes to Midnight <#124171b7d2ac78a0_Item+2> 3. David Petraeus's War <#124171b7d2ac78a0_Item+3> 4. Evil Empire State Building <#124171b7d2ac78a0_Item+4> 5. All the News That's Fit to Reprint <#124171b7d2ac78a0_Item+5> 6. Individual Rights and Constitutionalism <#124171b7d2ac78a0_Item+6> ------------------------------ Submit articles, interesting links, letters to editor, or comments to [email protected]. ------------------------------ *Top News Stories* *Commentary by Robert Tracinski* 1. The Anti-Industrial Coup It looks like President Obama, facing the failure of his domestic agenda in Congress, is now going to attempt to pull out a victory by threatening Congress with the usurpation of its legislative powers. How? The administration has announced plans to impose sweeping controls on emissions of carbon dioxide by executive fiat, through the EPA, bypassing the legislature altogether. As I warned<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/the_antiindustrial_coup.html>early this year, Under what system of government does the chief executive say to the legislature, in effect, "write the legislation I want, or else I will simply enact it by decree"? The answer: not under a system of representative government and the separation of powers. Barack Obama is proposing to govern, not in the manner of an American president, but in the manner traditionally sought by leftist strongmen like Hugo Chavez. We've now arrived at that point. This is another step toward the Obama Banana Republic<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/08/the_lawless_state_comes_to_america_96404.html>. Note also one particular detail. The administration is justifying its action under the authority of the Clean Air Act. But the limit it is proposing to place on carbon dioxide emissions is far higher than those mandated by the Clean Air Act on actual pollutants. The more draconian limit required by that Act would not only be an economic disaster; it would be politically unpopular because it would target small businesses and not just unsympathetic big corporations. So the EPA unilaterally altered the Clean Air Act limits. So much for claiming to act under the authority of legislation. "EPA Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html>," John M. Broder, *New York Times*, September 30 Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities. President Obama has said that he prefers a comprehensive legislative approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a piecemeal application of rules, and that he is deeply committed to passage of a climate bill this year. But he has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to begin moving toward regulation, which could goad lawmakers into reaching an agreement…. "We are not going to continue with business as usual," Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. "We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them." The proposed rules, which could take effect as early as 2011, would place the greatest burden on 400 power plants, new ones and those undergoing substantial renovation, by requiring them to prove that they have applied the best available technology to reduce emissions or face penalties…. Ms. Jackson said the proposed rule had been written to exempt small businesses, farms, large office buildings and other relatively small sources of carbon dioxide emissions. But under the rule proposed Wednesday, the EPA would assume authority for the greenhouse gas emissions of 14,000 coal-burning power plants, refineries, and big industrial complexes that produce most of the nation's greenhouse gas pollution…. Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and an opponent of global warming legislation, called the proposed rule "a backdoor energy tax" that circumvents Congress and violates the terms of the Clean Air Act. *back to top* <#124171b7d2ac78a0_TOC> 2. Five Minutes to Midnight Here's another reason to be terrified about the scale of the disaster that Obama could cause in only a single term in office—even in the face of growing public and political opposition. US intelligence agencies seem to have overreacted to their overestimate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by *under*-estimating Iran's nuclear program, and they now find their complacent estimates opposed by the Europeans and Israel. In underestimating the Iranian threat, intelligence officials are simply following the lead set from the top. Why stick your neck out and risk your career to argue that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb—if you know this is something the White House doesn't want to hear? "A Nuclear Debate: Is Iran Designing Warheads?<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/middleeast/29nuke.html>" William J. Broad, Mark Mazzetti, David E. Sanger, *New York Times*, September 28 When President Obama stood last week with the leaders of Britain and France to denounce Iran's construction of a secret nuclear plant, the Western powers all appeared to be on the same page. Behind their show of unity about Iran's clandestine efforts to manufacture nuclear fuel, however, is a continuing debate among American, European and Israeli spies about a separate component of Iran's nuclear program: its clandestine efforts to design a nuclear warhead. The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike, say they believe that Iran has restarted these "weaponization" efforts, which would mark a final step in building a nuclear weapon. The Germans say they believe that the weapons work was never halted. The French have strongly suggested that independent international inspectors have more information about the weapons work than they have made public…. American officials said that Iran halted warhead design efforts in 2003, a conclusion they reached after penetrating Iran's computer networks and gaining access to internal government communications. This judgment became the cornerstone of the 2007 intelligence report, which drew sharp criticism from Europe and Israel, and remains the subject of intense debate. Disagreeing with the Americans, Israeli intelligence officials say they believe that Iran restarted weapons design work in 2005 on the orders of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader…. German intelligence officials take an even harder line against Iran. They say the weapons work never stopped, a judgment made public last year in a German court case involving shipments of banned technology to Tehran. Graham Allison, the author of "Nuclear Terrorism" and a Harvard professor who focuses on proliferation, said he could not conceive of Iran's building only one such site. "How likely is it that the Qum facility is all there is? Zero. A prudent manager of a serious program would certainly have a number of sites," he said. *back to top* <#124171b7d2ac78a0_TOC> 3. David Petraeus's War While President Obama took time out of his schedule to personally intervene<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125413794927946081.html>in favor of Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics—Chicago was then summarily rejected<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/No-snickering-about-the-Olympic-loss-please--63287752.html>in favor of Rio de Janeiro, adding another item to the list of things Obama just can't get done—he has now spent about a week publicly dithering about whether or not to cut and run in Afghanistan. The top US commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, has asked for an additional 40,000 troops in order to implement a "surge"-style counterinsurgency campaign. Behind him is CentCom commander David Petraeus, the architect of the surge in Iraq. But the administration has not yet complied with the general's request, instead sending up trial balloons about a watered-down "counter-terrorism" operation that would essentially abandon the Afghan countryside to the Taliban. In response, Republicans are doing the best they can as a congressional minority, pushing an attempt<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/01/gop-let-generals-testify-on-afghan-war/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_more_news_carousel>to require McChrystal and Petraeus to testify before Congress about their troop needs, thereby "providing a public forum for them to make the case for a larger force and forcing Mr. Obama to choose between his generals and the growing anti-war sentiments coming from within his own party." The *New York Times* reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/world/asia/28military.html>that a senior White House official described McChrystal's recommendation as the "we're in this to win" option. Which raises the question: what *other*option is the administration considering? "Gates Doubts US's Afghan Strategy<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435650569454583.html>," Yochi J. Dreazen, *Wall Street Journal*, October 1 Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the senior US commander in Kabul, is advocating a manpower-intensive counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the Afghan populace rather than hunting individual militants. He submitted a classified assessment over the weekend calling for up to 40,000 US reinforcements. Mr. Obama met with senior military officials, diplomats and Cabinet members Wednesday as part of the review, which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said was designed to "poke and prod" potential new approaches to the conflict…. In an interview Wednesday, a senior defense official said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates now worries that counterinsurgency might no longer be a viable approach for countering the Taliban violence roiling once-stable parts of north and west Afghanistan…. It is far from clear what strategy additional forces will be asked to implement on the ground in Afghanistan. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Wednesday that Mr. Gates was "undecided about what the appropriate tack should be going forward in Afghanistan."… Counterinsurgency remains the preferred strategy of the Pentagon's top uniformed military officers. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gen. David Petraeus, the commander overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have both endorsed Gen. McChrystal's approach to the conflict publicly in recent days. Adm. Mullen told a Senate panel earlier this month that he also endorsed sending more troops to Afghanistan. *back to top* <#124171b7d2ac78a0_TOC> 4. Evil Empire State Building The big story of the current era (and of the past century, really) is the West's crisis of confidence—our inability to confidently celebrate and defend our enormous moral and material achievements, and a corresponding eagerness to apologize to and appease anyone who has not matched those achievements. That's the significance of the story below, about the decision of the owners of the Empire State Building to take this symbol of the achievements of American capitalism and light it up in red and yellow to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Communist rule in China. And it gets worse. The blog of the *Weekly Standard* points out<http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/the_peoples_empire_state_build.asp>that the Empire State Building refused <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125357744824229499.html> a request to light the building in green to show solidarity for pro-liberty protests in Iran during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN. Why? Because the building "avoids taking sides in political disputes." Or rather, it avoids taking sides in favor of liberty and against dictatorships. "Empire State Building Turns Red-Yellow for China's 60th<http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUZamhqvPGVrYZpGq_clUpC7dAUg>," AFP via Google News, September 29 New York's iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China. The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People's Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement. The upper sections of the building are regularly illuminated to mark special occasions, ranging from all blue to mark "Old Blue Eyes" Frank Sinatra's death in 1998 to green for the annual Saint Patrick's Day. *back to top* <#124171b7d2ac78a0_TOC> 5. All the News That's Fit to Reprint The decline of the mainstream media is not primarily an ideological phenomenon. It is being driven by real, substantial economic forces (especially the loss of two major revenue streams—classified ads and "help wanted" ads—to the Internet). But boy, the MSM's ideological bias sure doesn't help any. In the past few weeks, we have seen the official abdication of the MSM at its most basic task of reporting the news. First, ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson responded<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/abcs_gibson_acorn_story_is_one_you_leave_to_the_cables.html>to the ACORN scandal by saying that it was a story he preferred to "leave to the cables," which means, to Fox News Channel. In other words, if a story doesn't serve their ideological agenda, the MSM just isn't interested in reporting it. Now it gets worse. Below, the "public editor" of the *New York Times*—a kind of internal watchdog who is supposed to forthrightly address the newspaper's mistakes—responds to the *Times*'s failure to report the ACORN scandal until the whole thing was over. Note, however, the paper's response: in the future, it will avoid missing these stories by more closely *monitoring the blogs and cable news*. Consider the enormous investigative and reportorial resources still commanded by the *Times* and you get an idea of what a dodge this is. The * Times* is not announcing that it will increase its efforts to engage in its own, original investigations of the Obama administration. Instead, it is announcing that it will allow *others* to initiate such investigations—and then more rapidly republish their results. In effect, the *New York Times* is declaring that it no longer intends to be an originator of news stories—at least not when those stories run against its own ideological agenda. I guess there's nothing really new about that, but it is astonishing to see it admitted so openly. "Tuning In Too Late <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html>," Clark Hoyt, *New York Times*, September 26 On Sept. 12, an Associated Press article inside *The Times* reported that the Census Bureau had severed its ties to Acorn, the community organizing group. Robert Groves, the census director, was quoted as saying that Acorn, one of thousands of unpaid organizations promoting the 2010 census, had become "a distraction." What the article didn't say—but what followers of Fox News and conservative commentators already knew—was that a video sting had caught Acorn workers counseling a bogus prostitute and pimp on how to set up a brothel staffed by under-age girls, avoid detection and cheat on taxes. The young woman in streetwalker's clothes and her companion were actually undercover conservative activists with a hidden camera…. But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, *The Times* stood still. Its slow reflexes—closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser—suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television, and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like *The Times* needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself. Some editors told me they were not immediately aware of the Acorn videos on Fox, YouTube, and a new conservative Web site called BigGovernment.com…. Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was "slow off the mark," and blamed "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person "a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere." *back to top* <#124171b7d2ac78a0_TOC> 6. Individual Rights and Constitutionalism Amidst all of the bad news recently, there are a few substantial glimmers of good news. One is the Supreme Court's decision last year to recognize—for the first time in 80 years—the right to keep and bear arms that is codified in the Second Amendment. This is significant beyond it impact for gun owners. It demonstrates how a long-neglected individual right can be resurrected and brought back into legal force by decades of academic, legal, and cultural activism. Next stop: property rights. More broadly, it shows the way for restoring the idea that individual rights and the provision of the constitution place strict limits on government power. And last year's Supreme Court victory is not over. The previous case applied to the District of Columbia, which is directly administered by the federal government, so it did not directly decide whether the Second Amendment limits *state* governments, just as the other provisions of the Bill of Rights are considered binding on state governments. That will be decided in a new case, described below. By the way, the real laugh here is the City of Chicago's claim that "enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence." That's funny, because the only time I've ever felt that I really *needed* to carry a gun for protection was when I lived in Chicago. "Gun Rights Case Could Turn On Civil War-Era Laws<http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/01/taking_liberties/entry5354594.shtml>," Declan McCullagh, CBS News, October 1 The US Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it plans to hear the next major gun rights case, a move that will decide whether the Second Amendment can invalidate state laws and municipal ordinances. A 5-4 Supreme Court decision last year did say that the US Constitution protects an individual right to own a handgun. But the majority opinion never concluded that the Second Amendment applied to states; it didn't say what kind of laws beyond a flat ban are acceptable or unacceptable; it didn't even say what kind of standards lower courts should apply when evaluating anti-gun laws…. So if much of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state governments—a concept called "incorporation"—why not the Second Amendment as well?... The city of Chicago, in a 43-page brief submitted to the Supreme Court, has argued that the right to own a firearm is not fundamental: "In urban environments, where handgun abuse is so rampant, the protection of a right to handguns simply because they are in common use undermines, rather than guarantees, ordered liberty. It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence."… Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and historian who has written a book titled *Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms*, has extensively reviewed the debate in the US Congress over extending the right to bear arms to the newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. He concludes: "The framers of that amendment understood from hard experience that the rights to personal security and personal liberty are inseparable from the rights to self defense and to keep and bear arms." *back to top* <#124171b7d2ac78a0_TOC> ------------------------------ To remove yourself from this mailing list, reply to [email protected] with the subject line "unsubscribe." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
