From Pamela Geller's March 12 Atlas Shrugs blog post:

First of all, it needs to be said: Obama, get your hands off our kids. Seriously. Stop the fascist recruitment. It's sick.

Obama said he was going to build a civilian army -- and he is using our children. How? He uses the classrooms, as I exclusively broke the story here: Organizing for America recruitment in the classroom.

But AmeriCorps (can Obama pronounce the second syllable?) is the machinery for his youth army. And there is huge dough behind it -- yours and mine.

From R. Emmett Tyrrell's March 12 The Washington Times column:

There has been yet another eruption of violence from what our liberal friends a year or so ago were wont to call "the angry left." However, if you read The Washington Post, you might think this recent outburst of violence came from talk radio.

The angry leftist behind the violence was John Patrick Bedell, 36, who, on the evening of March 4, walked up to an entrance of the Pentagon, pulled a gun on two Pentagon guards, Jeffrey Amos and Marvin Carraway, and was fatally shot. Both guards were wounded.

In the aftermath of this attack, it was reported that Bedell was a pot-smoking intellectualoid from California who had left word on the Internet that, according to his findings, a "coup regime" took over Washington at the time of President Kennedy's assassination and has governed the country "up to the present day." What is more, the "coup regime," according to Bedell, was complicit in Sept. 11, 2001. This judgment might strike you as extreme, but apparently it is not, at least not on the left. You will recall that President Obama's recently resigned environmental czar, Van Jones, had signed a petition to this effect before being invited into the administration.

In The Post's report on Bedell's assault - headlined "Pentagon Shooter's Erratic Journey" - a high school classmate recalled: "I remember [Bedell] being a sweet-natured, funny peacenik." Another acquaintance reported to The Post that Bedell was a heavy marijuana user, and elsewhere, one of Bedell's brothers reported that he was a perpetual student who, so far as the brother knew, never held a job while bouncing from campus to campus and developing his esoteric theories. All in all, this glassy-eyed ideologue surely was a man of the left, the infantile left to be sure, but the left.

[...]

Thus John Patrick Bedell, a life-long member of the angry left, gets himself killed while assaulting the Pentagon, and the pious journalists at The Washington Post lump the poor guy in with right-wing militias. It is shoddy journalism. Much worse, it is a shocking act of disrespect for the dead.

Previously:

Boehlert: The Pentagon shooter, insurrectionism, and right-wing bloggers

From George F. Will's March 12 Washington Post column:

We could take one small step toward restoring institutional equilibrium by thinking as Jefferson did about State of the Union addresses. Justice Antonin Scalia has stopped going to them because justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in the midst of the partisan posturing -- the political pep rally that Roberts described. Sis boom bah humbug.

Next year, Roberts and the rest of the justices should stay away from the president's address. So should the uniformed military, who are out of place in a setting of competitive political grandstanding. For that matter, the 535 legislators should boycott these undignified events. They would, if there were that many congressional grown-ups averse to being props in the childishness of popping up from their seats to cheer, or remaining sullenly seated in semi-pouts, as the politics of the moment dictates.

In the unlikely event that Obama or any other loquacious modern president has any thoughts about the State of the Union that he does not pour forth in the torrential course of his relentless rhetoric, he can mail those thoughts to Congress. The Postal Service needs the business.

We've noted before how Fox News acts as a campaign arm for the Republican Party, campaigning for Republican candidates and repeatedly passing off GOP talking points as its own research (once without even deleting the typos the talking points contained). The Huffington Post has uncovered what appears to be another example of Fox News' favoritism for the GOP. HuffPo reports that Fox News has lodged a copyright claim, leading YouTube to take down a Democratic National Committee ad that uses footage from Fox News, while a Republican National Committee ad that uses Fox News footage is still up on YouTube.

HuffPo reports: "Fox News Channel has forced YouTube to take down a Democratic National Committee Web ad that mocks Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio for spending $130 on a haircut saying that the spot illegally uses network footage." HuffPo later adds: 

A Democratic source, arguing that this could constitute evidence that Fox News is in the tank for Rubio, points out that the YouTube page where the DNC ad used to be currently contains the following disclaimer: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Fox News Network, LLC."

By contrast, HuffPo notes that an RNC web video that consists of a clip of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) appearing on Fox News remains on YouTube. The RNC video was put on YouTube on February 24.

From the Fox Nation (accessed on March 11):

The Reuters article to which Fox Nation linked, however, was headlined: "Reid says will use 'reconciliation' on healthcare."

Previously:

Fox News: "Will H'CARE 'NUCLEAR OPTION' NUKE ECONOMY?"

Smith ignores Fox's role in perpetuating "nuclear option" falsehood

Luntz inadvertently shows why Fox News prefers to call  reconciliation the "nuclear option"

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen just won't give up on his defense of the witch hunt against DOJ attorneys who represented terror suspects even in the face of overwhelming criticism from conservatives and progressives alike. In his latest piece for The Washington Post, Thiessen lashes out at the critics, writing: "Defenders of the habeas lawyers representing al-Qaeda terrorists have invoked the iconic name of John Adams to justify their actions, claiming these lawyers are only doing the same thing Adams did when he defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. The analogy is clever, but wholly inaccurate."

In essence, Thiessen is saying that he is correct, and almost everyone else is wrong, since people from across the political spectrum have agreed that the DOJ attorneys were working in the Adams' tradition.

Here are just a few of the people who, unlike Thiessen, have said that there are similarities between John Adams and the attorneys who represented detainees: former independent counsel Ken Starr; Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; Larry Thompson, the former number two official at the Bush Justice Department; Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general under President Bush; senior Bush defense department officials Matthew Waxman, Charles "Cully" Stimson, and Daniel Dell'Orto; Bush associate White House counsel Bradley Berenson; former top advisers to Condoleezza Rice Philip Zelikow and John Bellinger III; Slate.com columnist Dahlia Lithwick; Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman; Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for the military commissions; Orrin Kerr, who served as special counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) during the confirmation hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor; and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. Former Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey has also criticized the attack. Previously, Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson also defended lawyers who represented detainees from attacks.

Looking at the substance of Thiessen's attempt to differentiate Adams from the DOJ lawyers under attack, it's no wonder that so many people disagree with Thiessen. Thiessen's first argument appears to be that Adams was merely acting as a loyal British subject, defending his "fellow countrymen." Thiessen writes:

For starters, Adams was a British subject at the time he took up their representation. The Declaration of Independence had not yet been signed, and there was no United States of America. The British soldiers were Adams' fellow countrymen -- not foreign enemies of the state at war with his country.

Thiessen then appears to abandon the argument that Adams was acting in the British tradition, claiming rather that Adams was acting according to the "American tradition later enshrined in the Sixth Amendment":

Second, the British soldiers were accused of a crime. The constitution was not yet in place, but as I pointed out in my column this week, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains that the great American tradition later enshrined in the Sixth Amendment "guarantees the accused -- that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime -- a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system and lodged charges against."

Hmm. So, Adams was actually acting according to a "great American tradition" that wouldn't be enshrined until Congress passed the Bill of Rights two decades later.

One more inconvenient fact for Thiessen: The trial of the Boston Massacre took place in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Judicature, the forerunner to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, a Massachusetts state court. The U.S. Supreme Court did apply the Sixth Amendment to criminal trials in state courts until 1932, when it held in Powell v. Alabama that the right to counsel applied to the states in capital cases. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not extend the right to counsel to state courts in all felony cases until the landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision in 1963, nearly 200 years after the Boston Massacre trial in which Adams participated.

Thiessen then goes on to reiterate his attacks against the DOJ attorneys:

In the 234 years since Adams and his compatriots fought for our independence, the United States has held millions of enemy combatants -- and not one had ever filed a successful habeas corpus petition until the habeas campaign on behalf of Guantanamo detainees began.

[...]

The habeas lawyers are not doing what John Adams did -- representing accused criminals already in the judicial system. Rather, they have reached outside the judicial system and dragged the terrorists in.

Importantly, Gideon -- a habeas corpus case -- explicitly overruled a prior Supreme Court case, Betts v. Brady, which held that, absent a capital trial or other extraordinary circumstances, states did not have to provide counsel to defendants. Gideon actually filed the habeas corpus petition himself, but once the Supreme Court accepted the case, numerous lawyers filed briefs supporting his case. One could say: "In the [187] years since Adams and his compatriots fought for our independence, [the states tried countless American citizens] -- and not one had ever filed a successful habeas corpus petition [fully extending the Sixth Amendment to the states] until the habeas campaign on behalf of [Gideon] began."

So, by Thiessen's logic, we should be excoriating the Gideon attorneys. Behold the Gideon 32:

Abe Fortas, by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Abe Krash and Ralph Temple.

[...]

J. Lee Rankin, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Norman Dorsen, John Dwight Evans, Jr., Melvin L. Wulf, Richard J. Medalie, Howard W. Dixon and Richard Yale Feder.

[...]

A brief for the state governments of twenty-two States and Commonwealths, as amici curiae, urging reversal, was filed by Edward J. McCormack, Jr., Attorney General of Massachusetts, Walter F. Mondale, Attorney General of Minnesota, Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Albert L. Coles, Attorney General of Connecticut, Eugene Cook, Attorney General of Georgia, Shiro Kashiwa, Attorney General of Hawaii, Frank Benson, Attorney General of Idaho, William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, Evan L. Hultman, Attorney General of Iowa, John B. Breckinridge, Attorney General of Kentucky, Frank E. Hancock, Attorney General of Maine, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Thomas F. Eagleton, Attorney General of Missouri, Charles E. Springer, Attorney General of Nevada, Mark McElroy, Attorney General of Ohio, Leslie R. Burgum, Attorney General of North Dakota, Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, J. Joseph Nugent, Attorney General of Rhode Island, A. C. Miller, Attorney General of South Dakota, John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, C. Donald Robertson, Attorney General of West Virginia, and George N. Hayes, Attorney General of Alaska.

In a column titled, "Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?" to be published in Sunday's Washington Post, but available online, former New York Times editor Howell Raines writes: 

One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?

Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue.

Raines later wrote: 

For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party. And let no one be misled by occasional spurts of criticism of the GOP on Fox. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation.

Under the pretense of correcting a Democratic bias in news reporting, Fox has accomplished something that seemed impossible before [Roger] Ailes imported to the news studio the tricks he learned in Richard Nixon's campaign think tank: He and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions -- whether on health-care reform or other issues -- they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting. I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it's hard to ignore the evidence. News Corp., with 64,000 employees worldwide, receives the tender treatment accorded a future employer.

At least 80 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 for white people." Here are his March 11 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Chattem, Inc. (Unisom)
• Lifestyle Lift
• Answers in Genesis (IAmNotAshamed.org)
• Tax Masters
• Rosland Capital
• Chattem Inc. (Aspercreme)
• The Law Offices of Pulaski & Middleman
• Chattem, Inc. (Gold Bond)
• Goldline
• American Petroleum Institute
• Lifelock
• Lear Capital
• International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
• Hydroxatone, LLC
• America's Health Insurance Plans
• Rosland Capital
• The Jewelry Exchange
• Merit Financial
• Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. (Cosamin)
• LegalHelpers.com
• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
• 1-800-PACK-RAT
• American Advisors Group
• Zero Technologies (ZeroWater)
• Lifestyle Lift

In an effort to critically analyze another piece of pop music, Glenn Beck and his sidekicks reached the conclusion that Bruce Springsteen's 1984 hit "Born in the U.S.A." is critical of America and, therefore, unpatriotic. In fact, the song was deemed so unpatriotic by the former shock jock's crew that co-host Pat Gray declared it to be "anti-American." This simplistic version of patriotism appears to leave little room for any criticism of America, its policy, or the behavior of its people.

After Gray revisited Beck's earlier deconstruction of Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land," the gang turned its collective attention to Springsteen, with Gray getting the ball rolling by noting that Fourth of July fireworks displays often include "Born in the U.S.A." in the musical medley. Beck then broke into a spoken word version of the song:

Born down in a dead man's town

The first kick I took was when I hit the ground

You end up like a dog that's been beat too much

'Til you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A.

I got in a little hometown jam

And so they put a rifle in my hand

Sent me off to Vietnam

To go kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery

Hiring man said, son if it were up to me

I go down to see the VA man

He said, son you don't understand

This went on for some time, until Beck concluded, "Where are the fireworks?"

Now, in a 2008 interview with CBS' Scott Pelley, Springsteen actually addressed the notion that his music and its message are somehow unpatriotic because they challenge America and its citizens to live up to their ideals, stating, "It's unpatriotic at any given moment to sit back and let things pass that are damaging to some place that you love so dearly." Springsteen added, "There's a part of the singer going way back in American history that is of course the canary in the coalmine. When it gets dark, you're supposed to be singing."

Just don't sing an anti-American tune.

The Washington Post gushes over the House GOP's announcement that they won't seek any earmarks this year:

But "key step" is more than a little generous: By most estimates, earmarks account for only 1 to 2 percent of the federal budget.

Touting a largely symbolic move as a "key step in demonstrating fiscal restraint" is, in fact, a key step in delaying actual fiscal restraint.

From a March 11 post on the NY Times' The Caucus blog:

Last week, the conservative Fox television host Glenn Beck called on Christians to leave their churches if they hear any preaching about social or economic justice because, he claimed, those are slogans affiliated with Nazism and Communism.

This week, the Rev. Jim Wallis, a liberal evangelical leader in Washington. D.C., called on Christians to leave Glenn Beck.

"What he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show," wrote Mr. Wallis, who heads the anti-poverty group Sojourners, on his "God's Politics" blog. "His show should now be in the same category as Howard Stern."

Mr. Beck, in vilifying churches that promote "social justice," managed to insult just about every mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, African American, Hispanic and Asian congregation in the country - not to mention plenty of evangelical ones.

Even Mormon scholars in Mr. Beck's own church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in interviews that Mr. Beck seems ignorant of just how central social justice teaching is to Mormonism.

Previously

Beck: Social justice is "infecting all" faiths

Beck: Question church leaders who are "basing their religion on social justice"

Beck: Social justice "is a perversion of the Gospel," "not what Jesus would say"

From a March 10 WorldNetDaily video by Molotov Mitchell:

Previously:

AIM's Kincaid omits parts of Lancet study that undermine his support for anti-gay Uganda law

AIM's Kincaid aggressively defends proposed anti-gay Uganda law

Some of Molotov Mitchell's best friends are ... gay?

WND's Mitchell says Uganda would be "right" to make "homosexuality a capital offense"

A New York Post column this week expressed grave concerned about the "ruthless" Obama administration and its willingness to use "every trick" in the book to get health care reform passed. The mob-like tactics remind the (fragile) Post of The Sopranos. 

That's certainly been a GOP Noise Machine favorite in recent week and months; that the WH is using extraordinary arm-twisting measures, including illegal maneuvers, to get its own members of Congress to sign off on a high-profile and controversial bill. Conservative partisans express outrage and gasp that they're certain they've never seen anything like the horse-trading now on display inside the Beltway. 

Except we have. And worse. 

I noted this a couple month ago, but with the incessant right-wing rhetoric about the supposedly corrupt health care vote, it's worth repeating: In 2004, a conservative member of Congress accused Republican colleagues of trying to bribe him by offering a six-figure campaign donation in exchange for his 'yes' vote on the controversial (and costly) Bush Medicare bill. 

Funny, back then I don't remember hearing much caterwauling from the Post opinion page, or from Michelle Malkin, who appears to be working her way through the alphabet and denouncing every member of the Obama administration as corrupt. She's never seen this kind twisted vote-getting, she insists. 

Except, of course, when it reportedly happened in plain sight in 2003.

From CBS/AP, at the time [emphasis added]: 

The House ethics committee said Wednesday it will begin an investigation to determine whether Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., was offered a bribe to vote for the Medicare drug bill.

...

Smith was among several lawmakers lobbied heavily by GOP leaders last November to vote for the measure. It narrowly passed but Smith voted against it because he said it was too expensive.

After the vote, Smith told a radio station that Republican colleagues had offered $100,000 in campaign cash for his son, Brad, if he voted for the bill. The younger Smith is running to replace his father, who is retiring.

And what was the GOP's reaction to the allegations? 

And Republicans were mounting a defense, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich telling C-SPAN on Friday that Smith was "a disgruntled retiring member" who was the victim of nothing more than the usual treatment in a close vote.

"I just think this is one of those occasional Washington mountains that's being built out of less than a molehill," Gingrich said.

Who says bipartisan cooperation is dead? Apparently there are scores of conservatives willing to give Democrats all kinds of heartfelt advice about passing health care reform. 

As Washington Monthly's Steve Benen noted this week: 

You know who's really looking out for congressional Democrats' electoral fortunes? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). While you and I might think, "Wait, isn't that the guy trying to destroy Democrats as part of his drive for power?" it seems McConnell is awfully anxious to give Democrats campaign advice, which he expects Dems to take seriously.

Not surprisingly, the transparent trend is spreading into the conservative media. in today's WSJ column, pundit Rove also warns Dems about the grave political consequences of passing health care reform: They're going to be punished at the polls!!

The polling landscape is littered with warning signs for Democrats. A Newsweek poll this week found that 62% of independents oppose Barack Obama's health-care plan. A Rasmussen poll, also out this week, found strong opposition to the president's health-care reform was twice as intense as strong support.

Passage of the Senate health-care bill will make a GOP takeover of the House more likely this fall, especially if all Republican candidates pledge to make pushing for repeal their first order of business next year. 

That's all very well and good. But considering Rove is a professional partisan whose job for the last several decades has been to try to make sure Democrats get punished at the polls, why is Rove urging Democrats to avoid making a costly mistake? If passing health care is such a disaster-in-the-making for the Democratic Party, wouldn't Rove want Dems to pass the bill? Wouldn't he be gleeful at the prospect, and be doing everything he could now to make sure health care reform becomes law? 

UPDATED: Meanwhile does anyone else think it's strange to watch journalists gather at Rove's knee as he launches his book tour and explains to them how the White House works, and details all the mistakes the Obama adminstration is making? Rove, after all, is the guy who helped guide the Bush presidency into a deepest ditch in modern American history. Bush left office with an approval rating that's basically half of what Obama's is today. 

So why do journalists care what Rove has to say? He's the guy with all the answers? 

As the Washington Post reported: 

But Tuesday, U.S. District Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth tossed the case. "After years of litigation, endless depositions, the fictionalized portrayal of this lawsuit and its litigants on television," Lamberth concluded in a 28-page opinion, "this court is left to conclude that with the lawsuit, to quote Gertrude Stein, 'there's no there there.' "

The plaintiffs, he wrote, "after ample opportunity . . . have not produced any evidence of the far-reaching conspiracy that sought to use intimate details from FBI files for political assassinations that they alleged.

"The only thing that they have demonstrated is that this unfortunate episode -- about which they do have cause to complain -- was exactly what the defendants claimed: nothing more than a bureaucratic snafu." 

But 'Filegate' didn't just happen. It wasn't able to maintain a decade-plus shelf life on its own. It was concocted and nurtured by partisan forces, both on Capitol Hill and in the media. And if there were any justice today, they'd have pay the mountainous legal fees that were wasted on 'Filegate' and similarly hollow Clinton-era scandals.

Writes Joe Conason at Salon: 

Googling the term "Filegate" brings up stories that should embarrass the Wall Street Journal editorial page; the Media Research Center, whose chief wingnut Brent Bozell  continued to flog this discredited fake as late as November 2007;  National Review Online; WorldNetDaily; Fox News Channel, then in its  noisome infancy; and indeed, nearly every other organ-grinder and kazoo-blower of the Republican noise machine.'

Unfortunately, the GOP Noise Machine appears to immune to embarrassments stemming from factual errors and conspiracy theories gone awry. And the Beltway press has made a tradition out of ignoring right-wing crusades that crash and burn. 

So what's the unfortunate 'Filegate' legacy? There's still no political downside to launching fanciful, unglued attacks against Democrats. And it's a lesson that today's right-wing blogosphere, AM radio, and Fox News crew has taken to heart. 

The Post's media critic today in his column highlights Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent rant against the "despicable" national press corps for paying more attention this week to the Massa saga than a Congressional debate about the Afghanistan war. 

Here's the Kennedy clip. (He addresses the news media in the first 45 seconds): 

Here is Kurtz's take [emphasis added]: 

I enjoy a good anti-media rant as much as the next guy, but let's get real. This was a vote on a symbolic resolution, pushed by Dennis Kucinich, to pull all troops out of Afghanistan by year's end. It went down 356 to 65. The news business has devoted considerable resources to this war and many correspondents have risked their lives to cover it. The House did not conduct a serious debate yesterday on ending the war, and therefore it wasn't covered seriously. 

First of all, Kennedy wasn't referring to overseas war coverage. He was talking about that fact that inside the Beltway the debate over the Afghanistan war --the policy story -- is being ignored. So Kurtz's reference to overseas correspondents risking their lives misses the point. 

Second of all, as Kennedy noted in his tirade, only two reporters, he claimed, showed up to cover the Congressional debate. According to Kurtz that wasn't a big deal because the debate was not "serious." But how did journalists know that before they decided not to show up to cover the debate? 

Contrary to Kurtz's suggestion that the lack of coverage reflected the non-serious nature of the debate, it appears that journalists were going to skip the debate no matter what the content turned out to be.

In other words, it was just a (liberal) Kucinich resolution. 

From Dr. Milton R. Wolf's March 11 Washington Times op-ed:

Imagine if, like physicians, politicians were personally held to the incredibly high level of scrutiny that includes civil and financial liability for any unintended consequence of their decisions. Imagine if they were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars each year on malpractice insurance and still faced the threat of multimillion-dollar lawsuits with every single decision they made. If so, a government takeover of health care would be the furthest thing from their minds.

[...]

I have personally trained and practiced in both the government-run and free-market segments of American medicine. The difference is vast. Patients see this for themselves, and this may be why, according to a recent CNN poll, they oppose Obamacare nearly 3 to 1. I am with them. It is difficult for me to speak publicly against the president on his central issue, but too much is at stake.

I wish my cousin Barack the greatest of success in office. But I feel duty-bound to rise in opposition to Obamacare. I must take a stand for my patients, my profession and, ultimately, my country. The problems caused by government will not be solved by growing government. Now that this new era of big-government takeovers has spread to our health care system, it's not just our freedoms or our wallets that are at stake. It's our lives.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a radiologist in Kansas. He is Barack Obama's second cousin once removed. President Obama's great-great grandfather, Thomas Creekmore McCurry, is Dr. Wolf's great-grandfather. Dr. Wolf's mother, Anna Margaret McCurry, was five years older than Mr. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. The two were childhood friends until the Dunhams moved from Kansas to Seattle in 1955.

The conservative media's witch hunts against President Obama's nominees and appointees has recently focused on Justice Department lawyers who previously represented terror suspects, as well as judicial nominees Goodwin Liu and Robert Chatigny, and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nominee Robert Harding. The cases against all of these targets are falling apart.

On March 3, The Washington Times published an editorial misrepresenting Liu's record in order to call him a "radical." Sean Hannity also joined in the dishonest attack on Liu -- a law professor at Berkley and a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Since then, conservatives including Liu's colleague at Berkley, John Yoo, and the Goldwater Institute's Clint Bolick have vouched for Liu. Bolick wrote: "Having reviewed several of his academic writings, I find Prof. Liu to exhibit fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty. He clearly possesses the scholarly credentials and experience to serve with distinction on this important court." And according to the Los Angeles Times, Yoo -- the Bush administration lawyer who authored the infamous torture memos -- said of Liu's nomination: "[H]e's not someone a Republican president would pick, but for a Democratic nominee, he's a very good choice." Liu has also reportedly received the support of James Guthrie, education policy studies director at the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.

So much for the idea that Liu is a radical leftist.

Today, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson claimed that "some are concerned" that Chatigny -- a federal trial judge who Obama has nominated for elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- "may be biased in favor of sex offenders." Carlson's allegation was based on Chatigny's actions during the appeals of a death penalty case involving convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross. Chatigny strongly expressed concern that Ross' lawyer was not sufficiently investigating evidence regarding Ross' mental competency. Later, an ethics complaint was brought against Chatigny. But here's the important thing that Carlson left out: a panel of judges cleared him of charges and declared his actions "reasonable." And this wasn't a whitewash by a bunch of leftists; the panel included Michael Mukasey, who went on to become President Bush's attorney general. According to media reports, several legal experts have also defended Chatigny's actions in the case.

So much for the idea that Chatigny is "biased in favor of sex offenders."

The attack on Harding -- a retired Army general -- is unlikely to fare much better. As we've pointed out, in a March 8 article, WorldNetDaily wrote that Harding has "controversial" views on the need for diversity in the intelligence community. WND claimed that Harding "long has pushed for 'ethnic diversity' as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies." The article quoted November 2003 written testimony Harding gave to a Senate subcommittee stressing the need for diversity hiring in the intelligence community. But Harding's views are neither controversial nor unique. Indeed, President Bush's Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said during a conference, "It is now our policy across this [intelligence] community that we do not screen out first generation Americans. The very people that we need in this community to speak the languages, understand the cultures, are the ones who have come to America from the distant shores." He later said, "[O]ur focus is to get a more diverse culture," and that "[w]e have got to have more diversity." Other intelligence officials have made similar statements.

So much for the idea that Harding has controversial views on diversity.

Which brings us to the ridiculous attacks on DOJ lawyers who once represented detainees: Fox News, Investor's Business Daily, and Washington Post columnists Bill Kristol and Marc Thiessen have all participated in the attacks. Several of the attackers have suggested that -- in the word of Fox contributor Monica Crowley -- the DOJ lawyers are "terrorist sympathizers." These attacks have not led to any firings, but they have resulted in condemnation from the media and from several prominent conservative lawyers as well as Mukasey. Indeed, even former independent counsel Ken Starr has slammed these attacks and compared the DOJ lawyers to John Adams and Atticus Finch.

When the attacks on the Obama administration officials lead Ken Starr to compare the targets of the attacks to Atticus Finch, it's time for the witch hunters to pack it in and go home.

At least 80 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 for white people." Here are his March 10 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Wholesale Direct Metals (HelpwithGold.com)
• American Petroleum Institute (EnergyTomorrow.org)
• Carbonite
• Lifestyle Lift
• Merit Financial
• Tax Masters
• LifeLock
• Goldline
• 1-800-Pack-Rat
• Answers in Genesis (IAmNotAshamed.org)
• The Jewelry Exchange
• Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Alteril.com)
• TurboTax
• Zero Technologies (ZeroWater)
• Lear Capital
• Lifestyle Lift
• DIRECTV (Starz)
• IRSTaxAgreements.com
• Rosland Capital
• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
• American Advisors Group
• Quietus (QuietRelief.com)

In a March 10 FoxNews.com article about the White House "fighting back against fishing aficionados who say President Obama is planning to impose regulations that will give their hobby the hook," reporter Joshua Rhett Miller writes that "neither document [from the Interagency Ocean Policy Task] contains language pertaining to a potential ban on recreational fishing, as some reports had previously asserted": 

Obama established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in June to address increasing pollution and habitat destruction within the nation's oceans, coastal regions and Great Lakes. Led by Nancy Sutley, the task force released an interim report in September that outlined nine priority objectives of the plan, including the coastal and marine spatial planning.

Three months later, in its interim framework, the task force defined that planning as an "effective process to better manage a range of social, economic, and cultural uses," including commercial and recreational fishing, mining, tourism and traditional hunting, among others.

But neither document contains language pertaining to a potential ban on recreational fishing, as some reports had previously asserted.

Fishing enthusiasts became alarmed when a story posted on ESPNOutdoors.com and widely circulated by bloggers alluded to the potential of a ban on recreational fishing. The Web site has since posted a clarification stating that columnist Robert Montgomery's opinion piece was improperly labeled.

Despite that clarification, recreational fishermen are reeling, fearing their rods are at risk.

While FoxNews.com writes that "some reports" and "bloggers alluded to the potential of a ban on recreational fishing," FoxNews.com doesn't acknowledge that Fox News itself has been spreading the myth.  Since yesterday, Fox Nation, Fox Business Network and the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck have pushed the bogus claim.  As of 6:27pm E.T. today, Fox Nation is still promoting the absurd story online: