There's little doubt that at hand is an ongoing effort by the Obama White House to marginalize the Fox News Channel - especially after the administration attempted to leave Fox out of the White House pool last week. That is something conservative columnist Cal Thomas said is eerily comparable to Cold War tactics of the old Soviet Union.

On Friday, Byron York of the Washington Examiner  focused attention on an unfolding story the liberal media doesn't want to highlight.

Some key parts of the Patriot Act are set to expire in December. When the anti-terrorism law was passed in the days after 9-11, Congress put eight-year time limits on the most far-reaching provisions. Since the Democrats didn't really favor a War on Terror, their preference for the civil liberties of terrorist suspects over the civil liberties of future terrorist victims is becoming clear. York looked at one exchange in the Senate with freshman Sen. Al Franken:

Even roving wiretaps, a widely accepted, common-sense feature of the Patriot Act, have come under question. At a Sept. 23 committee hearing, Sen. Al Franken, the newest member of the committee, challenged the constitutionality of such wiretaps, and in the process left an Obama Justice Department official -- who supports the law -- muttering in frustration.

That official, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, tried to explain to Franken that the law allows, and the courts have held, that investigators can wiretap a suspect based on a specific description of that suspect's activities, even if investigators don't know his name.

Franken, who pointed out that he is not a lawyer, was unimpressed. "That's what brings me to this," he said, pulling a copy of the Constitution from his coat pocket. He read aloud the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Is the Patriot Act's roving wiretap provision consistent with the Constitution? Franken asked.

"I do think it is," Kris answered, "and I kind of want to defer to that other, third branch of government. The courts, in looking at -- "

"I know what they are," Franken joked, as the audience laughed.

Kris seemed taken aback. "This is surreal," he said under his breath.

Indeed it was. Maybe Franken was serious, and maybe he was just clowning around. But it didn't make for an enlightening exchange -- or bode well for the Patriot Act.

Now the committee is down to the business of crafting an actual bill to reauthorize the act. Republicans believe they can beat back some of the more sweeping changes, but they are under no illusions about the Democratic majority's power to chip away at the government's ability to fight terrorism.

"I'm very worried that we could end up weakening the act," says [GOP Sen. Jeff] Sessions, "when we should be considering what we can do to make it stronger."

It goes without saying the Obama-loving media are going to do everything in their power to downplay Saturday's Taxpayer March on Washington, and the New York Times is certainly living down to such expectations.

As evidence, consider the Times headline,"Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government."

Thousands?

That's certainly not how Britain's Daily Mail saw it (h/t NBer MrShy and reader Keith Brown):

Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.

The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.

By contrast, the Times reported:

The demonstrators numbered well into the tens of thousands, though the police declined to estimate the size of the crowd. 

Even the picture the Times used downplayed the event:

Here's the picture the Mail published:

Which outlet do you think is reporting this more accurately?

If your answer is the Mail, why would a British outlet better estimate the size of this crowd than one of the leading American papers?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

In a shocking twist to Thursday's ACORN sting video story, the Baltimore city state's attorney is considering charging the two people that exposed the activity.

As NewsBusters has been reporting, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe (pictured right) caught on video several ACORN representatives giving them advice as to how to get a loan to purchase a house to be used as a brothel whose employees would be under-aged illegal immigrants.

Despite the long list of laws possibly broken by these ACORN representatives, the Baltimore city state's attorneys office is looking into whether or not Giles and O'Keefe violated statutes concerning taping people without their consent (h/t HotAirPundit):

Baltimore, MD – September 11, 2009 – We have received inquiries from citizens and the media asking whether the Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office would initiate a criminal investigation for acts allegedly committed at ACORN offices located in Baltimore. The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video. Upon review by this office, the video appears to be incomplete. In addition, the audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent.

If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to 5 years.

Isn't that special?

People are caught on tape giving business advice to folks looking to create a child-prostitution ring, and the state of Maryland is considering prosecuting those that uncovered the activity!

The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott elaborated Saturday:

[T]wo ACORN employees appear to have voluntarily become accessories to multiple federal, state and local crimes, including child abuse, interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, tax evasion, and immigration law violations. The two ACORN employees may also have thus provided hard evidence that their employer should be prosecuted as a criminal enterprise under the RICO statutes.

And the Baltimore City State's Attorney may prosecute the two people responsible for exposing this heinous operation!

If any of this sounds vaguely familiar, it should because back in the Clinton days, the Maryland State's Prosecutor prosecuted Linda Tripp for recording Monica Lewinsky's description of her sexual encounter with President Bill Clinton. And, as the Baltimore blog Inside Charm City noted, this particular ACORN office has previously been in hot water for apparent illegal activities.

Reasonable people can disagree about the importance of the Lewinsky matter, but nobody can deny that O'Keefe and Giles have exposed multiple serious felonies involving sex slavery, child abuse, and federal tax evasion.

Indeed, yet this state's attorney, who apparently hasn't issued any comment concerning the prosecution of the ACORNers, is looking into going after the filmmakers?

Further complicating matters, Ed Morrissey noted Saturday that a Baltimore television station on several occasions used hidden cameras in investigative reports that ended up winning it awards. For some reason, the state's attorneys office didn't investigate the legality of those activities.

Beyond this, the actual code in question obviously exempts law enforcement officials that are involved in criminal investigations.

As these videos exposed folks in offices possibly funded with taxpayer dollars aiding and abetting criminal acts, the idea that those who uncovered such acts could be prosecuted is absurd.

Or is it?

After all, as HotAirPundit identified, the state's attorney in question, a Patricia Jessamy, is an avid Obama supporter and contributor.

As such, if charges are actually filed, wouldn't they obviously be retaliation?

If so, we now not only have a media unwilling to report the misdeeds of ACORNers, but we also have authorities going after those that dare to uncover such acts.

Honestly -- what country is this?