News the media manipulators don't want you to see

Thomas Lifson
In case you haven't noticed, the propaganda masters of the progressive media have a demoralization campaign underway, targeting conservatives in general and the GOP House majority in particular. The goal is to convince us that resistance is futile, that all is lost, and we might as well let Obama have his way.

In accord with this campaign, rays of hope, harbingers of a halt to Obama's momentum must be kept below the radar of most voters. If the media regard something as a non-event, then so will the masses (as leftists love to describe the populace).

Andrew Malcolm of Investor's Business Daily is not fooled, and describes for us a remarkable event that seems to have escaped the attention of the New York Times and the rest of the media progs who use the Gray Lady as their pilot fish:

This story is a week old, actually. Strangely, you haven't seen any real coverage of this development in mainstream media, perhaps because it concerns a crucial legal setback for Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius in a New York federal court. (snip)

The Obama administration had sought to have the case by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York thrown out because of its so-called "temporary safe harbor" provision.

That was a statement last winter by Health and Human Services that it would not seek to enforce or prosecute religious institutions for failing to provide such controversial coverage until later next year while steps to address their concerns were developed.

There have been no concrete attempts made to provide such steps. And privately, now skeptical church officials confide the president had previously assured them even before his February news conference that their worries were already addressed, which they were not.

Judge Cogan completely rejected Obama's argument, calling the administration's punitive steps against the religious institutions an "actual and well-founded fear" that is "looming and certain" much like "a speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs." 

He chided the administration as having had ample time to address the institutions' concerns already. And then Judge Cogan let forth with this:

"The First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action.

"There is no, 'Trust us, changes are coming' clause in the Constitution.

There is much more, wittily described by Malcolm.

This is big, big story, involving the largest religious body in the United States, the Roman Church, in legal combat with the United States government, and it is winning. At issue is the biggest new governmental program in decades.

The performance of the national media in ignoring this story is a disgrace. It is imperative the conservatives understand that the media are manipulating the national mood, and playing mind games with us.

Update: No coverage of union thug violence in Lansing is another excellent example of the ciorruption of the propaganda media. Open public scorn toward the media is the appropriate response.

In case you haven't noticed, the propaganda masters of the progressive media have a demoralization campaign underway, targeting conservatives in general and the GOP House majority in particular. The goal is to convince us that resistance is futile, that all is lost, and we might as well let Obama have his way.

In accord with this campaign, rays of hope, harbingers of a halt to Obama's momentum must be kept below the radar of most voters. If the media regard something as a non-event, then so will the masses (as leftists love to describe the populace).

Andrew Malcolm of Investor's Business Daily is not fooled, and describes for us a remarkable event that seems to have escaped the attention of the New York Times and the rest of the media progs who use the Gray Lady as their pilot fish:

This story is a week old, actually. Strangely, you haven't seen any real coverage of this development in mainstream media, perhaps because it concerns a crucial legal setback for Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius in a New York federal court. (snip)

The Obama administration had sought to have the case by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York thrown out because of its so-called "temporary safe harbor" provision.

That was a statement last winter by Health and Human Services that it would not seek to enforce or prosecute religious institutions for failing to provide such controversial coverage until later next year while steps to address their concerns were developed.

There have been no concrete attempts made to provide such steps. And privately, now skeptical church officials confide the president had previously assured them even before his February news conference that their worries were already addressed, which they were not.

Judge Cogan completely rejected Obama's argument, calling the administration's punitive steps against the religious institutions an "actual and well-founded fear" that is "looming and certain" much like "a speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs." 

He chided the administration as having had ample time to address the institutions' concerns already. And then Judge Cogan let forth with this:

"The First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action.

"There is no, 'Trust us, changes are coming' clause in the Constitution.

There is much more, wittily described by Malcolm.

This is big, big story, involving the largest religious body in the United States, the Roman Church, in legal combat with the United States government, and it is winning. At issue is the biggest new governmental program in decades.

The performance of the national media in ignoring this story is a disgrace. It is imperative the conservatives understand that the media are manipulating the national mood, and playing mind games with us.

Update: No coverage of union thug violence in Lansing is another excellent example of the ciorruption of the propaganda media. Open public scorn toward the media is the appropriate response.