A couple of days ago, I noted that Mark Halperin's idiotic portrayal of Sen. Mary Landrieu as having semen in her hair hadn't drawn as much attention and criticism as you might expect -- particularly given the widespread media attention that greeted Newsweek's use of a photo in which Sarah Palin posed for in a running suit.

Here's an example: Washington Post/CNN media critic Howard Kurtz addressed the Palin photo controversy on the November 22 broadcast of CNN's Reliable Sources.

But Kurtz stayed silent about Halperin's stupid photoshop tricks during yesterday's Reliable Sources. (Kurtz hasn't mentioned the matter in his work for the Washington Post, either.)

Oh, yeah -- Mark Halperin works for Time magazine, whose web site hosted his offensive doctored photo of Sen. Landrieu.  Time and CNN are corporate siblings.

But Howard Kurtz would never let such considerations affect his reporting, would he?

(H/T: News Corpse)

In defending cable news and talk radio from PBS host Jim Lehrer's statement that they offer relatively shallow approaches to health care coverage, Newsbusters' Tim Graham asks:

Does Lehrer think Rush Limbaugh doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of a health-care bill?

Here's some recent "nitty-gritty" from Limbaugh on health care:

Limbaugh falsely claims health care bills provide for five years of jail time if you don't buy insurance

Rush: If health care bill passes, Dems get "72 virgins" in "Capitol wading pool" and "lifetime supply of Viagra or Cialis"

Quick Fact: Limbaugh falsely claims undocumented immigrants "are covered" under House health care bill

Quick Fact: Dr. Limbaugh promotes false notion that abortion is linked to breast cancer

Limbaugh: "Human beings will die earlier than normal" under "freedom killing" and "life threatening" health-care reform

Rush Limbaugh's coverage of health care reform, like most issues Rush Limbaugh covers, is error-riddled, misleading and offensive. In the eyes of conservative media critics like MRC's Newsbusters, this is getting into the "nitty-gritty". Heaven help us.

In his Nov. 30 column, Newsmax president and CEO Christopher Ruddy declared that the "mainstream media" is" simply out of touch with ordinary Americans" and that "the major media establishment lives in a bubble." Ruddy's evidence for this: The media criticized Sarah Palin for reading Newsmax.

Ruddy touts the popularity of Newsmax's website, claiming it "has reached close to 4 million unique visitors monthly." He also promotes Newsmax's magazine, asserting that it has "a monthly readership of more than 800,000." But note that he said "readership," not paid circulation, which is the standard accepted metric for measuring a magazine's reach. Newsmax has previously indicated that it believes the magazine is read by four people for every copy sold, which is apparently where it gets that inflated "readership" number.

Ruddy writes: "The bottom line is this: Those who live in the Big Media Bubble can't comprehend the appeal of Newsmax -- or Sarah Palin." He's got us there. We have trouble grasping the appeal of a website that has published columns advocating a military coup against President Obama, calling for a "tenting" of the White House, blaming the Holocaust Museum shooting on Obama, and embracing the birther conspiracy.

Ruddy also touted how Palin's book "shot to the top of the best-seller lists, reportedly selling 700,000 copies in the first week after its Nov. 17 release." He fails to mention that a not-insignificant amount of those copies are the likely result of below-cost loss-leader deals from online retailers -- including Newsmax's own $4.97 deal for the book.

This is getting to be an embarrassing habit. Right-wing activist Andrew Breitbart has already shown us he doesn't know what a "hate crime" is," and that he doesn't understand what "blackmail" means. And now, apparently he can't read Supreme Court rulings.

Breitbart's been wildly (over) hyping a batch of ACORN documents that a San Diego private investigator (and failed GOP candidate) by the name of Derrick Roach stuffed into his car one night back in October. Roach got the docs after a dumpster dive behind ACORN's office. Breitbart has been claiming the latest ACORN installment is Watergate-meets-the-Lindbergh-kidnapping in terms of blockbuster news, even though, to date, his site hasn't produced the goods yet on San Diego, which is why the story's gone nowhere.

But in a recent post, note how Big Government pushed back against claims that the ACORN docs may have been obtained illegally; a claim that California AG's Jerry Brown seemed to endorse. Here's how Breitbart's site defended the charge [emphasis added]:

At age 71, California’s top cop and erstwhile Gov. Moonbeam might benefit from a refresher course in current law.  Attorney General Brown cited a case from the 1960’s where items placed in the garbage were considered private; however, in 1988 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a case, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), that there was no expectation of privacy when items are thrown in the garbage since it is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.  As for the local National City ordinance prohibiting scavenging through garbage that the ACORN office and its supporters cite, that law was enacted in 1984 and was nullified by the United States Supreme Court ruling just four years later.

Breitbart's Big Government pointed to a 1988 Supreme Court ruling to suggest that everything Roach did in obtaining the ACORN docs was okay.

Not quite.

From CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988):  

Here, we conclude that respondents exposed their garbage to the public sufficiently to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. See Krivda, supra, at 367, 486 P.2d, at 1269. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage "in an area particularly suited for  public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it," United States v. Reicherter, 647 F.2d 397, 399 (CA3 1981), respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items that they discarded.

Furthermore, as we have held, the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public. Hence, "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."

The 1988 ruling clearly dealt with garbage disposed "on or at the side of a public street." And today, Breitbart's Big Government claims that that decision means their actions were legit. But where did Big Government obtain the ACORN documents? Did they come across them in garbage bags that "could have been observed by any member of the public" and "left on or at the side of a public street"? Were the documents "knowingly expose[d] to the public"?

Of course not. According to Big Government's own telling of the tale, the docs were taken, under the cover of night, from a dumpster located behind ACORN's San Diego office. In fact, here's the photo Big Government posted showing the dumpster in question. And yes, the dumpster was caged:

In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled there was no claim to privacy regarding garbage bags placed on the side of a public curb from pick-up. Today, Breitbart says that law pertains to them, even though Big Government's docs  were taken from a caged dumpster; a dumpster that Breitbart even concedes was located not on the side of a public curb, but "behind ACORN in San Diego."

And get this: Roach himself even admits that he drove by a no trespassing sign to get to the ACORN dumpster!

UPDATED: Big Government itself has referred to the San Diego document retrieval as a "dumpster dive." Obviously, the 1988 Supreme Court ruling did not concern itself with late-night dumpster dives into caged containers located beyond a no trespassing sign.

Continuing its proud tradition of doubling as a GOP bulleting board, where every possible anti-Obama talking point is treated as breaking news (hello Drudge link!), Politico's John Harris cobbles together a breathless laundry list of all the awful things people (i.e. Republicans and Village pundits) are saying about Obama. Y'know, that he's an "over-exposed" "opportunistic" "patsy" with a low opinion of America.

But oh my, the evidence of the 'trends' is awfully thin and Harris doesn't even bother to maintain the traditional three's-a-trend newsroom rule. Take a look at this knock [emphasis added]:

Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.

Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.

The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy.

So far this year, out of the tens of thousands of Obama mentions made in the mainstream press, Harris found exactly two examples of his pundit pals comparing Obama to Mr. Spock, therefore voilà! it's a disturbing trend for the White House that's "gaining momentum." 

Folks, this is why they call it The Village.

Or let's put it this way, she's willing to pretend she has no idea what public polling is when it suits the interest of her column. So she writes an entire piece about how devastating Obama's bow in Japan was to the president's reputation (the image "took off" and became "iconic") without mentioning that, oh yeah, a strong majority of Americans approved of the bow. And even a majority of Republicans thought the bow was fine.

Noonan writes a column in which she suggests that almost overnight the Obama bow became the defining image of his supposedly failed presidency (she can just feel it), and yet Noonan forgets to mention that most Americans, and even most Republicans, approved of the bow.

Which means this point is worth repeating as you read Noonan's latest filing from the parallel universe:

Yet more proof that the right-wing noise machine doesn't even reflect mainstream conservatives. It's just its own bizarre, fact-free world that whips up an endless stream of nonsensical allegations that only truly radical Obama haters care about.

UPDATED: Watching Peggy Noonan, who worked for (and worshiped) Ronald Reagan, now regularly re-write Reagan history is more than a little amusing. However, it does not speak well of her attempts at intellectual honesty.

For weeks now, Noonan has been writing about how Obama's not up to the job, about how his presidency is slipping away, and Americans are turning against him. And now, with the bow, about how Obama's getting tagged as a failure. What she conveniently ignores is the fact that Obama's current job approval rating stands at almost the exact same spot Reagan's did ten months into first year in office. Noonan wants to write Obama off as a first-year failure, even though Obama's first year has unfolded almost exactly as her hero Reagan's did.

In fact, Reagan's second year, in terms of job approval, was a complete catastrophe, as his rating plunged into the mid-30's. But Noonan ignores all that and pretends that Reagan sailed through his first term in office.

Here's Noonan re-writing history in her latest column:

You can get tagged, typed and pegged your first year. Gerald Ford did, and Ronald Reagan too, more happily.

According to Noonan, Regan was "happily" tagged with a public persona his first year; a first year that looked almost exactly like Obama's, which she presents as a growing failure. But if Reagan was "happily" tagged in year one, than how does Noonan explain Reagan's second year in office, in which his administration virtually collapsed?

Seems that if Noonan's going to re-write Reagan history on a weekly basis now, she's going to have to be less sloppy about it.

From a November 28 post by Gateway Pundit titled, "White House Party Crashers Linked to Obama's Radical Pal Rashid Khalidi": 

American Power has more on the Salahi's leadership role with the the American Task Force on Palestinian, the "moderate" rights groups pushing a thinly-veiled program of Palestinian nationalism and the "right of return" (the backdoor destruction of Israel).

According to Discover the Networks, ATFP's former vice president is Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University Middle East Studies professor and militant Palestinian rights activist. Khalidi cites the late Edward Said as his major influence, and according to the entry cited, "As with Said before him, Khalidi's involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support." And, "Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi's affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as 'we' when expounding on the PLO's agenda." Also, according to Campus Watch, ATFP remains in full support Kahlidi, for example, during charges of academic misconduct in 2005, at the time of Senator Barack Obama's meeting with Tareq Salahi. See, "ATFP EXPRESSES FULL SUPPORT FOR COLUMBIA PROFESSOR RASHID KHALIDI.

Note too that Obama's ties to the Palestinian community became something of an issue during the 2008 campaign. See, the Los Angeles Times, "Allies of Palestinians See a Friend in Obama." Plus, from Andrew C. McCarthy and Claudia Rosett, "In Obama's Hyde Park, It's All in the Family: Passing Anti-American Radicalism From Generation to Generation.

As you may recall. The LA Times hid the tape of Barack Obama attending a 2003 Jew-bash where he praised and toasted the former PLO operative Rashid Khalidi.

With Barack Obama, it's always about the radicalism. Always.

It looks like the Salahi security breach is much more than just an "embarassment" for the Secret Service.  [emphasis in original]

Previously:

Hume's report citing LA Times article on Khalidi event omitted Times' report that Obama "called for finding common ground"

UPI reported McCain campaign allegations that LA Times is "suppressing a video" of Obama and Khalidi, but not McCain's own reported "connection" to the "Palestinian activist"

Another day, another doctored claim from Gateway Pundit

Lies, Damned Lies, and Gateway Pundit's use of statistics

Fox's Kelly gives "hat tip" to birther, Obama-Hitler Youth comparing blog Gateway Pundit

From conservative web publisher Andrew Breitbart's Twitter account:

Previously:

Limbaugh: Scientists involved in global warming "hoax" should be "named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is"

Someone get the smelling salts.  WorldNetDaily is gonna need them:

Now, I won't pretend to be surprised that WND is outraged at a "'gay musical,'" when they presumably wouldn't think twice about a "'straight' musical."  

But I am curious about one thing: why does WND repeatedly put the word gay in quotes?  Do they think the musical isn't really gay?  

Anyway, WND uses the musical as an excuse to hawk this charming little book:

Why have Americans come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation? Get David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" at the WND Superstore.

Newsbusters' Jeff Poor issues a proclamation:

We've already seen how ineffective the previous $787-billion stimulus Congress and the President forced through earlier this year has been with curbing unemployment, as it has raced into double-digits over the previous months. But will there be an effort to force through another one?

Now, let's set aside the question of whether the first stimulus really has been "ineffective" for a moment.  

Poor never once entertains the possibility that if it has been ineffective (or insufficiently effective), it's because it was too small.  This despite the fact that many economists at the time said it should be bigger.  And despite the fact that conservative economist Martin Feldstein, a former Reagan administration official, says "There should have been more direct federal spending," and former McCain economic advisor Mark Zandi says "there was a considerable amount of hand-wringing that it was too small, and I sympathized with that argument."  Zandi also says "the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do - it is contributing to ending the recession. ... In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus." 

No, forget all that: Newsbusters' Jeff Poor says the stimulus has been ineffective, and there shouldn't be any more.  He doesn't offer any evidence or expert analysis -- but why would we need any?  He's Newsbuster Jeff Poor.  Isn't that enough?

You've probably noticed that Washington Post columnist David Broder and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are having a bit of a spat.  Again.  What you may have missed was the Beltway media rallying around Broder via a Politico article earlier this week:

In an age of ideological divisions, Broder is widely known as a fair arbiter on Capitol Hill, a journalist who's as interested in the process as he is in the policy and politics. He favors pragmatists over fierce ideologues and speaks up for decorum in Washington politics.

David Broder called for Bill Clinton's resignation over lies told about an affair, then refused to call for George W. Bush's resignation over lies told about a war, and refuses to explain the disparity.  He writes extensively about the marriages of Democrats, but when asked if he plans to write a similar article about Republicans, replies, "Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that."  Broder may be "widely known as a fair arbiter," but it's hard to justify that reputation if you look at his actual track record.  Which I have, in great detail.

As for Broder's staunch defense of decorum in Washington politics: that, too, is rather inconsistent.  Or perhaps when he dines on quail with his good buddy, the famously indecorous Karl Rove, he does so in order to urge his pal to tone down the partisan attacks?  (Or maybe Broder's insistence that reporters should apologize for Rove for -- correctly -- suggesting Rove was part of a campaign to out Valerie Plame was an example of his defense of DC decorum?  Criticizing someone for outting a CIA agent is so rude.)

Anyway, take a look at the things Broder is praised for in that Politico article: his sense of "decorum" and his "temperate disposition" and the fact that he "knows everybody."

Well, I couldn't care less about his disposition or who he knows.  I've read quite a bit of his work, and much of it isn't any good.

Maybe you thought that the recent outrage from the right over Newsweek's use of a photo of Sarah Palin in a running outfit meant conservatives are finally coming to understand that sexism has no place in the news media.  And maybe you thought all the attention the mainstream media paid to the controversy was a sign that they, too, are beginning to see the light -- and not simply another example of them asking conservative media critics how high they should jump.  Well, if you thought that, you'd be wrong.

Take, for example, Newsbusters.  The right-wing media critics were all over the Newsweek/Palin controversy.  But they haven't said a word about Mark Halperin doctoring a photo to portray Mary Landrieu as having semen in her hair.

But Newsbusters certainly isn't alone in ignoring Halperin's vicious portrayal of Landrieu.  Do a Nexis search for news reports containing the words "Halperin" and "Landrieu" in the past week, and you'll get exactly one result: a blog post by Michael Tomasky.  And this comes immediately after the media uproar over the Newsweek Palin cover.

Now, you might think the difference in attention is because Newsweek made the mistake of putting the photo of Palin on its cover, while Halperin's photoshop of Landrieu appeared only on Time's web page.  On the other hand, Newsweek used a photo Sarah Palin voluntarily posed for in order to promote herself, whereas Halperin doctored a photo of Mary Landrieu to make it look like she had semen in her hair.  So, let's call it even, shall we?

And, no, the disparity can't be explained by the fact that Beltway journalists love Mark Halperin, creator of ABC's insider gossip sheet The Note.  Glenn Beck called Mary Landrieu a prostitute, and the media didn't give a damn.  And when I say Beck called Mary Landrieu a prostitute, I don't mean that he hinted that Landrieu might do legislative favors in exchange for campaign cash.  I mean he literally called her a "prostitute."  

Progressive political figures like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have been on the receiving end of sexist media treatment for years, and conservative media critics like Newsbusters don't give a damn.  Nor does much of the mainstream media.  The lesson?  Newsweek's treatment of Sarah Palin was, indeed, sexist -- but many of those who criticized it don't really care about sexism in the media.  They care that a Republican was the target, and that Republicans were upset.

First it was Newsmax columnist John L. Perry. Now it's Rush Limbaugh essentially advocating a military coup by saying that when Obama outlines his Afghanistan policy at the United States Military Academy at West Point next week, "hopefully" they will "detain him" there.

Note: If you are calling for military officials to detain a president, you are calling for a military coup.

Newsmax got rid of Perry's column after we highlighted it and endeavored to distance itself from the column. But Limbaugh is more known for people apologizing to him than for apologizing for his outrageous remarks.

Local officials in St. Louis have charged six people in connection with a scuffle that broke out outside an August health care forum. Two of those charged are SEIU members who were hit with misdemeanor ordinance violations in connection with their altercation with Kenneth Gladney. They're accused on beating him up.

Problem for Breitbart and Big Government, as well as the rest of the over-excited right-wing blogosphere, is the low-key charges don't back up any of sensational allegations they've been making for months about the Gladney case. Namely that Gladney was savagely beaten within an inch of his life. (Note the "misdemeanor ordinance violations" that were filed.) That Gladney was the victim of a "hate crime." (No such charges were filed.) And that, most incredibly, the White House "directed" union members to beat up town hall protesters.

What's always been clear about the St. Louis event, since it was partially captured on video, was that a scuffle broke out the night of the town hall forum. Now six people face relatively minor charges and will have a chance to defend themselves. What remains a mystery is why the right-wing catapulted this minor event into the rhetorical stratosphere and concocted all sorts of wild claims about hate crimes, savage beatings, and (best of all) a White House connection. There's still no evidence any of that ever took place.

UPDATED: Not surprisingly, Breitbart's crowing about the Gladney "hate crime" case. And of course, there is no Gladney "hate crime" case. It doesn't exist. Period.  It only exists within the fervent imaginations of right-wing bloggers. (Or do those "misdemeanor ordinance violations" somehow qualify as hate crime charges in the state of Missouri?) Then again, those community workers weren't actually "praying" to Obama, and that didn't stop Breitbart from spreading that lie. So there's a definite trend in play here.

Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his November 25 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Rosland Capital
• Freije Treatment Systems (EasyWater Systems)
• Humana
• News Corp. (Fox News Channel University)
• Premier Bathrooms
• LifeLock
• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
• USfidelis
• Clarity Media Group (The Weekly Standard)
• The Foundation for a Better Life
• Jewelry Television
• The Foundation for a Better Life
• Goldline International, Inc.
• Lifestyle Lift
• Consumer Debt Advocate
• National Review

From Dana Perino's twitter feed:

Previously:

Perino: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term"

In the latest bit of right-wing lunacy on health care reform, RedState.com writer "hogan" brazenly compares health care reform bills to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941--inanely adding that if health care reform passes, you can "say goodbye to freedom." Indeed, a brutal sneak attack that obliterated or wounded at least 3,500 Americans on an early Sunday morning is certainly comparable to legislation that will decrease the deficit over 10 years, provide coverage for 94% of uninsured Americans, and prohibit insurance companies from dropping the insured due to pre-existing conditions.

Yet, with Fox News' Glenn Beck comparing health care reform to the attacks on 9/11 and former Bush press secretary Dana Perino obliviously declaring: "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term," one can only wonder if-like the words socialism, Marxism, fascism and freedom-maybe the right-wing media simply doesn't know what the word terrorism means.  

Here's the RedState post in all its glorious folly:

Saving Freedom This Thanksgiving

Posted by hogan (Profile)

Wednesday, November 25th at 12:41PM EST

2 Comments

68 years ago, Americans around the nation settled into a peaceful Thanksgiving weekend and celebrated with their loved ones. A week later, the nation was viciously attacked by Japan - an attack that sparked our involvement in perhaps the greatest of all wars.

This Thanksgiving holiday is different from that weekend. While we should likewise celebrate and give thanks for our innumerable blessings, this time, the American people are staring at an attack on our nation and can stop it. This attack is coming from within. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi healthcare bill - in its various forms - is an assault on the American way of life and an affront to all the generations before us who fought to preserve and protect our cherished freedoms.

Why? Because the bill will eliminate your God-given ability to care for your family according to YOUR wishes and YOUR conscience. It will insert Washington D.C., and the incompetent bureaucrats who live there, into your hospital room, your doctor's office, your insurance company, your home and ultimately, into your personal health decisions. As analyzed here, the bill is loaded with active-government terms like "shall," "tax," and "require." And, even a cursory review of the text will show how much power this bill gives Washington to interfere with your healthcare (you know, the town that brought you the TARP bailout, Katrina-relief and over $12 Trillion in debt and counting...). Qualifications, panels, reports, studies, mandatory insurance whether you want it or not, penalties, taxes, fees, mandates on coverage but restrictions on prices... and 2079 pages of non-stop assaults on your right to live free and care for your family as you see fit.

Say hello to lines, waiting rooms, priority lists and more expensive, less effective healthcare. Say goodbye to freedom.

That is, unless you act now. It is your job - indeed, it is your duty - to talk to your friends and family this weekend and in the coming weeks. Call them to action. Other than our fine men and women in uniform fighting around the world, there is nothing more important that you can be doing right now to preserve our children's birthright - heirs to the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Read over the bill. Read summaries. Whatever you need to do. Try the Heritage Foundation's website, http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/. Then... pause the football games and take a break from the turkey and cranberry sauce. Talk to friends and family this weekend. Explain it to them.

Then... next week, when the Senate come back in session - call your Senator. Email more friends. Email more family. Then... Call your Senator AGAIN. Don't stop. Repeat. Then... call Senators on the fence. And, feel free to start with Senators Ben Nelson (R-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Mary Landrieu (D- LA). They represent solidly red states - and need to have their feat [sic] held to the fire. The list of Senate office phone numbers can be found here. Shut their phones down. Flood their offices. Visit their offices.

The American people can win this, but only if you take action to stop it. There is one thing that elected representatives fear - and that is YOU, the American people. Celebrate Thanksgiving this year in the American way - by fighting for freedom and working hard to preserve this, the last best earthly hope for mankind.

From RedState.com, accessed November 25:

Saving Freedom This Thanksgiving

68 years ago, Americans around the nation settled into a peaceful Thanksgiving weekend and celebrated with their loved ones. A week later, the nation was viciously attacked by Japan - an attack that sparked our involvement in perhaps the greatest of all wars.

This Thanksgiving holiday is different from that weekend. While we should likewise celebrate and give thanks for our innumerable blessings, this time, the American people are staring at an attack on our nation and can stop it. This attack is coming from within. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi healthcare bill - in its various forms - is an assault on the American way of life and an affront to all the generations before us who fought to preserve and protect our cherished freedoms.

Why? Because the bill will eliminate your God-given ability to care for your family according to YOUR wishes and YOUR conscience. It will insert Washington D.C., and the incompetent bureaucrats who live there, into your hospital room, your doctor's office, your insurance company, your home and ultimately, into your personal health decisions. As analyzed here, the bill is loaded with active-government terms like "shall," "tax," and "require." And, even a cursory review of the text will show how much power this bill gives Washington to interfere with your healthcare (you know, the town that brought you the TARP bailout, Katrina-relief and over $12 Trillion in debt and counting...). Qualifications, panels, reports, studies, mandatory insurance whether you want it or not, penalties, taxes, fees, mandates on coverage but restrictions on prices... and 2079 pages of non-stop assaults on your right to live free and care for your family as you see fit.

Say hello to lines, waiting rooms, priority lists and more expensive, less effective healthcare. Say goodbye to freedom

From the November 25 edition of Fox News' Live Desk:

Congressman John Shadegg (R) represents Arizona's 3rd congressional district.

Previously / Related:

Fox News Management Fed Up by Mistakes

Fox News VP in May:  We don't have an accuracy problem - how's that still going?

Fox News' "mistakes" memo: where does the buck stop?

Fox News' year in apologies: fake videos, false info, cutting and pasting from GOP

Fox News:  "Sen. Joe Lieberman (R-CT)"

On Fox, Mark Sanford "(D)" holds press conference

On Fox & Friends, Sen. Max Baucus "(R-MT)" discusses his health care plan

Fox News:  "Rep. Joke Sestak (D-PA)"

In this all-important piece that mocks the White House for using the phrase "unprecedented" too often (I'm not making this up), Politico (inadvertently?) gives readers an inside look at how utterly pointless articles like this come to fruition [emphasis added]:

The White House’s announcement of its unprecedented — “a first by an American president visiting China” — town hall meeting with students in Beijing, for instance, drew a collective eye roll in certain circles back home, namely among former aides to President George W. Bush, who had already been grumbling about Obama’s carefree application of “unprecedented.”

Voila! Former Bushies have been privately mocking the White House for its use of "unprecedented." And then what do you know, Politico turns around the publically mocks the White House for its use of "unprecedented." And who does Politico quote for sources in its story? Former Bushies, like ex-flak Karen Hughes. 

That's how Beltway journalism works. Conservatives dream up attacks on Obama and then get journalists to treat the attacks as news, regardless of how absurd.

Making matters worse this time around is the fact that the Politico article contains perhaps single dumbest paragraph published by Politico in a very, very long time:

Either way, for a president whose approach to exaggerated critiques of his administration is to “call ‘em out” and who has made an issue of forcing corporate America to expose the fine print, one wonders whether his use of “unprecedented” would pass his own litmus test.