The NY Times is evidently dishonest about its dishonesty.
Yesterday, they published an article on President Obama’s climate speech, wherein he tackles the “problem” considered least important by making the #1 problem — jobs — worse. Obama’s speech was summarized as follows:
Embracing wholeheartedly an issue that could define his legacy but is sure to ignite new political battles with Republicans, Mr. Obama said he would use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants.
Why would he need to use executive powers when legislation is to come from the legislative branch, as the Constitution dictates? Because the “global warming” scare is losing traction, with more and more major news outlets and journals admitting doubts, and Obama knows that Congress (and the American people) do not want this legislation passed. So, he must undertake his private “War on Coal” by fiat — exactly what the Constitution was set up to prevent. The NYT admits that it wouldn’t fly:
[H]is reliance on executive branch regulations and other administrative actions, which do not require Congressional approval, is an acknowledgment that legislation to tackle climate change would be a near-impossibility in a deeply divided Congress.
The reason that they “don’t require Congressional approval” is that there is no provision for such new action by the President in the Constitution. The Presdident’s powers are outlined in Article 2, Section 3:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
War on Coal
It’s interesting that this phrase, the “war on coal,” is so unpopular in America but is exactly how the White House seems to refer to their plan internally, even if they can’t say it “politically.” The New York Times reported on this:
Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who is the head of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment and a member of a presidential science panel that has helped advise the White House on climate change, said he hoped the presidential speech would mark a turning point in the national debate on climate change.
“Everybody is waiting for action,” he said. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
But this screws up the plan, doesn’t it, because people will see this “war on coal” as the intention. I imaging that the New York Times got an angry phone call from the White House, demanding that this true-but-inconvenient fact be removed. In any event, it was — it has disappeared from the posted story, though as Ed Driscoll notes it is still in Google’s cache for the moment.
And various other outlets have noted and quoted it, including normally loyal Washing Post who called President Obama “bizarrely antagonistic toward domestic energy production and low energy prices.”
Punsters have joked that Obama has finally found a war he is willing to wage, and will outsource the identification of his enemies to the IRS.
So how does the New York Times explain their peculiar decision to remove this damaging quote from the online article? Here’s what appeared on the bottom:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: June 25, 2013
An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of heavy oil that would be carried by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It is 800,000 barrels per day, not 800,000 gallons.
Of course, the other correction, that they scrubbed the Obama administration’s comment about their planned War on Coal, was not mentioned. Even mentioning the correction would damage the president, and he cannot allow that, can he?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle