It seems as though the only time Lawrence O’Donnell has something nice to say about Fox News, it comes at the expense of nearly half the country.  Following the incendiary comments Fox News’ Smith made following Obama’s public support for gay marriage, MSNBC’s O’Donnell rushed to his defense and praised him for violating FNC's central value of remaining "fair and balanced."   

O’Donnell claimed that Smith is the lone voice of reason at Fox News and his comments caused the Fox News website Fox Nation to alter a headline reading "Obama flip-flops, declares war on marriage," to "Obama flip-flops."  [Video coming soon.  MP3 audio here.]

Never mind that Smith compared those who support traditional marriage to those who supported segregation.  Such details don’t matter to the liberal O’Donnell.  Lawrence followed up the segment by arguing, "now it's time to sit back and watch Fox News evolve on same-sex marriage, and all they really need to do to find their way on this one is to follow Shepard Smith, the Fox News man, on the right side of history."

See relevant transcript below.

MSNBC
The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell
May 9, 2012
10:49 p.m. EST

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: In tonight's rewrite, President Obama, Fox News and the right side of history. It did not take long after President Obama rewrote his public position on same-sex marriage for Republicans to declare that the President has declared war on marriage. On the Fox Nation section of the Fox News website, the headline was “Obama flip-flops, declares war on marriage.” And the war on marriage chorus began on Fox News.

SHEPARD SMITH: The President of the United States now in the 21st century and Ed Henry on the north lawn of the White House.

O’DONNELL: Wait a minute. What did he just say.

SMITH: The President of the United States now in the 21st century.

O’DONNELL: President of the United States now in the 21st century. That doesn't sound like war on marriage. That’s Fox News host Shepard Smith declaring the President to be in the 21st century. And he didn't stop there.

SMITH: In this time of rising debts and medical issues and all the rest if Republicans would go out on a limb and try to make this a campaign issue while sitting very firmly without much question on the wrong side of history on it.

O’DONNELL: But Shepard Smith has frequently been the lone voice of reason at Fox News, and now he's saying the President is on the right side of history. If Fox Nation wants a war on marriage, then Fox is going to give Fox Nation a war on marriage. Right, I mean they have to. Unless, of course, Shepard Smith said those things about President Obama being on the right side of history. The war on marriage was removed from the headline on Fox News on the Fox Nation section of the Fox News website after Shepard Smith said that, so now there is no war on marriage. Just a flip-flop.

SEAN HANNITY: And after years of voicing strong opposition of same-sex marriage, President Obama has reversed his position. It sounds like earmarks, it sounds like lobbyists, like cutting the deficit in half. Sounds like this President can't make up his mind very well on these things. Seems like Democrats wanted to say that Mitt Romney flip-flops, but this President flip-flops a lot.

O’DONNELL: And so now it's time to sit back and watch Fox News evolve on same-sex marriage, and all they really need to do to find their way on this one is to follow Shepard Smith, the Fox News man, on the right side of history.
 

The print and online guardians in the establishment press may have to open a new case of ellipses and order extra pairs of paraphrases to deal with this one. Video and audio editing will be easier, if not ethical (NBC has taught us that during the past several weeks).

Declaring what everyone with a functioning brain has known all along — namely that President Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage but hasn't had the political integrity to admit as much until now — the commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces told ABC News that "when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." Yes, he said that our military is out there fighting on his behalf (links are later in this post; HT to an emailer).

Funny, I thought that commissioned officers swore to defend the Constitution of the United States before saying they would obey the orders of the President:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it).

Early AP reports are carrying the "on my behalf" portion of the quote (here and here; saved at host here and here). I don't expect that to last, and I surely don't expect to see a lot of TV air time devoted to this telling, egotistical slip.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Over at Daily Kos, "Zenox"  wants the online world to know that President Obama is much, much scarier to Islamic terrorists than President Bush ever was. The worry is that al-Qaeda has "decided to make a showcase of a U.S. aid worker (Warren Weinstein) kidnapped in Pakistan in 2011" and this "hostage who happens to be a Jewish American (I am guessing from his name)" is a trap to sabotage Obama's re-election.

We're assured "The Taliban, al-Qaeda, Islamists do not want Barack Obama to get re-elected. Period. And frankly who could blame them? They had it pretty good during the Bush years." (Italics theirs.)

Hell, Bin Laden lived in an exclusive villa (his very own pussy heaven) with a harem and porn videos, galore. From the number of kids, you know the ol’ bushy face had been busy making whooopies, 24/7.  Don’t tell me that is not a good living for a cave dwelling terrorist, for goodness sake.  Where is he now?  He is in tuna heaven, courtesy of Obama and his seals. And this al-Quso character who had been tap dancing in and out of prisons during the Bush years is suddenly swatted like a fly on Obama’s sleeve? Come on! How much more can a poor Taliban, al-Qaeda, Islamist take?

Of course they want the Republicans back in power and they are going to do everything in their power to sabotage Barack Obama’s re-election bid, including this recent trap they have set up against him. Really, did we, even one minute, think that they would want Obama, their nemesis, to get re-elected?

Rachel Maddow loves to gush of her admiration for Americans who serve in uniform. She also complains how it's borderline criminal that New York City has not held a ticker-tape parade for soldiers who served in Iraq.

It's all posturing, nothing more. Maddow considers the military contemptible, as true-blue leftists always do. (video clip after page break)

On her cringe-a-minute MSNBC show May 4, Maddow questioned how it is be possible that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 conspirators will be tried by military tribunal and not in a "real" criminal court –

This weekend there will be arraignments — again — for five men accused of masterminding and conspiring to pull off the 9/11 attacks. The most famous of the five defendants is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we used to think of as looking like this (photo shown of bleery-eyed, grim-faced Mohammed shortly after his capture) but who now after years of US custody looks more like this (photo shown of Mohammed decidedly furrier and bright-eyed).

This trial was initially going to be held in real criminal court. In November 2009 the US attorney general announced that a federal court in Manhattan would be the venue. But after a political uproar about how awful it would be to try terrorism defendants in real US courts, the administration reversed course. And tomorrow's arraignment will be held instead at Guantanamo. It will not be a real court trial, it will be a military tribunal.

The few terrorism cases that have been pushed through this relatively untested, ad hoc military tribunal system have actually produced results that are more lenient on average than terrorism cases tried in real American courts. But the fear of trying an important terrorism case in a real court in New York is such that tomorrow's proceedings will be held offshore. They'll be held in Cuba. (Where that guy adorning Maddow's favorite T-shirt used to hang out).

This week, by the way, there was a conviction in what law enforcement says was the most serious terrorist plot on US soil since 9/11, a real plot by real al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists (as opposed to that alleged plot on 9/11 involving pseudo-terrorists) to bomb the New York City subway system in 2009.

The conviction was on Tuesday.

In federal district court in Brooklyn.

In New York. 

I feel the need to tell you it was on Tuesday because when it happened, nobody really noticed. Life went on in Brooklyn and in New York City and in New York state and in America, totally uninterrupted. Nobody much noticed but justice was served, in a real court.

… Unlike that kangaroo court down at Gitmo to be staged by our stooges in the military. 

Did you notice Maddow's fetish with the word "real"? Invoked more than a half-dozen times in a screed lasting two minutes, lest anyone miss getting hammered over the head.

Military tribunals cannot be "real" trials, Maddow insists. They can be unreal, surreal, venereal, you name it — just not, like, real, man. (Snap fingers to bongo accompaniment).

Maddow felt the need to tell you this, as do I in telling you what she wouldn't share with her credulous viewers anxiously awaiting their talking-points spoon feeding. The suspect convicted for his role in the NYC subway bombing plot was a naturalized citizen, arrested and charged in the US, and entitled to constitutional protections such as the presumption of innocence and trial by jury.

KSM and his woefully misunderstood cohorts, on the other hand — all foreign nationals captured abroad, after the United States became engaged in a war started by them, as they proclaim whenever the opportunity arises. They are no more entitled to constitutional protections than was Yamamoto, architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Roosevelt had him blown from the sky in 1943.

The only reason these pathetic Islamists are even facing trial is because the Bush administration decided that capturing al Qaeda plotters might be preferable to dispatching them outright, what with the limited intelligence to be gleaned from a corpse. Obama prefers to shoot first and elaborate later, thus avoiding that whole alleged moral quagmire over where to conduct trials for enemy combatants.

What is most amusing about Maddow's earnest anger is how ultimately it wouldn't matter to her where the trials were conducted. Since they'll be held at Gitmo, she bashes the military as incompetent. If the trials were held in the US, she'd bash the prosecution as incompetent. Whatever it takes for MSNBC to remain must-see TV for al Qaeda.

It didn't take long after President Obama voiced his support for same-sex marriage for CNN to gauge the enthusiasm of those in favor of the move. After the news broke at 3 p.m Wednesday, the first three guests CNN interviewed were all openly-gay and supported Obama's decision. It took well over two hours for a guest to appear who opposed the decision.

And in the three hours of coverage following Obama's "historic" announcement, five of CNN's guests expressed their support for his decision. Only one, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, opposed it. And the three openly-gay guests were pampered with soft questions, like "What was your first reaction" and "Did you start to cry?"

In contrast, when Perkins appeared on The Situation Room at 5:35 p.m., anchor Wolf Blitzer challenged his position on homosexuality. "What's wrong with giving gay Americans the same rights as heterosexual Americans?" Blitzer demanded of Perkins. He asked Perkins if he thought people were born gay, and lectured him on the topic.

Blitzer was much, much more sympathetic to lesbian Democratic activist Hilary Rosen. "A lot of my gay friends were moved by what the President had to say," he told her. "So when you heard the President utter those few words, did you get rather emotional? Did you start to cry?" he asked. "Because I've been getting a lot of messages from friends out there saying they actually started to cry, they were that moved."

After the initial news broke of Obama's statement at 3 p.m., the first guest to appear – aside from CNN analysts and reporters – was Michael Cole-Schwartz of the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign. Then at 3:37 p.m. openly-gay columnist LZ Granderson came on the air. He compared the situation gay couples have faced to the struggles of the civil rights movement.

Then during The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer hosted Hilary Rosen and later on a supposedly-balanced panel of Democratic strategist Paul Begala and GOP strategist Alex Castellanos. Only, Castellanos expressed his admiration and support for Obama's decision.

"Well on this particular issue, I actually don't disagree with the President. I'm on the President's side on this one, and have been for quite a long time," he revealed. "I have to say I admire him [Obama] for standing up for something that he believes in today," he declared.

Blitzer declared it "a historic day. A lot of us will remember what the President of the United States did on this day." Democratic strategist Paul Begala followed by pointing to the camera and saying "Thank you, Mr. President."
 

President Obama once again flipflopped on his position regarding same-sex marriage Wednesday, and his adoring media couldn't be more pleased.

On MSNBC, Hardball's Chris Matthews actually called for "gay men and women who now work for the election of Republican members of Congress, Senators, and [Mitt] Romney himself…to stand up, walk in the direction of their bosses and candidates, and ask them to join the president on this" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: President Obama remains a maker of history. He was the first African-American to serve as our president. Now he’s a leader of another kind: the first president to state his support for recognizing the marriage of partners of the same sex. However the circumstances, he now stands for reelection with this fact on the table. He stands against a candidate, Mitt Romney, who says he will never give up his opposition to gay marriage, a candidate who refuses to stand up for a gay man who was just run out of his campaign.

I guess Romney asking Richard Grenell to come back to work isn’t standing up for him. But I digress:

MATTHEWS: Could there be a grander canyon between these two men: one fully in support of the right of gay people to marry, one totally against that right?

It will take a bit of time to see how this affects the presidential election, but I have to wonder how gay men and women who now work for the election of Republican members of Congress, Senators, and Romney himself can sit in their work seats and refuse to stand up, walk in the direction of their bosses and candidates, and ask them to join the president on this. I have to wonder how long they can remain indentured servants, how long they can continue to accept the Republican Party’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule that you can work here as long as you keep your mouth shut on what you believe on the life you aspire to on those you love.

But tonight, I honor a president who regardless of the political consequences declared for all the world to hear that all God’s children have the right to love as they were born to love. That ought to count for something no matter which way the chips fall in this election.

Isn't it interesting that liberal media members that really don't care about the sanctity of marriage are suddenly enthralled by it and think it's the most important thing to a man or a woman regardless of their sexual orientation?

Divorce rates are skyrocketing in this country while the number of people getting married is on the decline.

As of 2010, there were almost 100 million Americans over the age of 18 that were single. 45 percent of American households are now unmarried.

As such, why would gays believe marriage equality was the most important issue to them in an election when it's clearly not the most important issue throughout the entire population?

Frankly, assuming that all members of the LGBT community have exactly the same top priority seems rather bigoted.

Is it a stretch to think that for many of these folks just like many heterosexuals, other things like jobs and the economy for instance might be on their frontburner?

Speaking of which, do you get the feeling that as America's media spend yet another news cycle talking about a social issue, the point is really to keep the nation thinking about anything other than the economy?

They wouldn't do that, would they?

On Tuesday's All Things Considered, NPR's Claudio Sanchez spotlighted the efforts of college students who, with the assistance of the "liberal Center for American Progress," are lobbying Congress for an extension of low interest rates on their Stafford loans. While Sanchez did find a critic of the politicization of the loan issue, he came from another left-leaning organization, the Brookings Insitution.

All of the correspondent's soundbites came from the CAP-backed students and from Mathew Chingo of Brookings, with none coming from conservatives/Republicans. Sanchez noted how the students visited Senator Rob Portman and identified him as "a Republican from Ohio," but omitted that he is considered a possible running mate on the 2012 Republican presidential ticket. He also played up how one student was "upset about something one of the senator's staff members said," but failed to get the other side of the story.

Host Melissa Block introduced the NPR's journalist's report by outlining that "neither Democrats nor Republicans want to be blamed for a rate jump in a few weeks, but lawmakers can't agree on how to pay for keeping the rate low. As NPR's Claudio Sanchez reports, the political stalemate has mobilized students, who are on Capitol Hill pleading with lawmakers to stop the bickering." Sanchez began by playing three clips from the students, and pointed out that a thousand dollars "would be added, on average, to every new Stafford loan for every year a student is in college, if the interest rate jumps from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1."

The correspondent then acknowledged the students "organized with the help of the liberal Center for American Progress," and noted how they visited Senator Portman, who is "all for the idea of keeping rates down, but doesn't want to pay for it by doing what Democrats propose, which is to close a payroll tax loophole used by business owners." He also played a clip of the students friendly departure from the politician's Capitol Hill office, but followed it with the soundbite of the aggrieved student:

SANCHEZ: After meeting with Portman's staff, Tiffany Loftin, a student at the University of California at Santa Cruz, sounds upset about something one of the senator's staff members said.

TIFFANY LOFTIN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ STUDENT: I have $38,000 in debt, like I told her, and it doesn't seem like she understood how urgent that was, because she said it wasn't an urgent matter. I was disappointed, though.

Sanchez didn't say if he tried to obtain a comment from Portman's office, which would have been the sensible follow-up.

Near the end of the segment, the NPR correspondent played three clips from Chingo, who concluded that "his small policy issue that the President [Obama] has made a big deal out of has, in many ways, been overblown."

It should be pointed out that both NPR and the Center for American Progress received large donations from left-wing billionaire George Soros in recent years.

The full transcript of Claudio Sanchez's report from Tuesday's All Things Considered:

MELISSA BLOCK: The Senate took up competing proposals today to keep the interest rate for federal student loans from doubling. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to be blamed for a rate jump in a few weeks, but lawmakers can't agree on how to pay for keeping the rate low.

As NPR's Claudio Sanchez reports, the political stalemate has mobilized students, who are on Capitol Hill pleading with lawmakers to stop the bickering.

CLAUDIO SANCHEZ: Clarise McCants and Patrick Johnson, both undergraduates at Howard University, are running late. They're joining students from California and Ohio, who've come to Capitol Hill to deliver a message to Congress: don't let the interest rate on federal Stafford loans double. It would be devastating, says Patrick.

PATRICK JOHNSON, HOWARD UNIVERSITY STUDENT: Because there's a chance that- after leaving college, that I may not have a job immediately after, and I'm still going to have to pay back these loans eventually. It would really set me back in debt even further.

CLARISE MCCANTS, HOWARD UNIVERSITY STUDENT: A thousand dollars means a lot to me, you know what I mean?

SANCHEZ: That's how much more would be added, on average, to every new Stafford loan for every year a student is in college, if the interest rate jumps from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1. Clarise says, for her, it's a lot.

MCCANTS: The student loan rate increase will effectively make college even less affordable for me next year, and, you know, these additional costs may seem minimal compared to, you know, the fiscal budget or, frankly, the salary of a congressman. But they're a big burden to people like me who are, you know, economically disadvantaged. So-

SANCHEZ: Clarise, Patrick, and the other students organized with the help of the liberal Center for American Progress. Their first visit is with Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio. Portman is all for the idea of keeping rates down, but doesn't want to pay for it by doing what Democrats propose, which is to close a payroll tax loophole used by business owners. Republicans want to pay for it by eliminating a preventive health care fund.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Thank you- appreciate it.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You're welcome.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Have a good day.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You too.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: After meeting with Portman's staff, Tiffany Loftin, a student at the University of California at Santa Cruz, sounds upset about something one of the senator's staff members said.

TIFFANY LOFTIN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ STUDENT: I have $38,000 in debt, like I told her, and it doesn't seem like she understood how urgent that was, because she said it wasn't an urgent matter. I was disappointed, though.

SANCHEZ: Another group of people who also seem disappointed are policy wonks, who've been watching this political skirmish unfold, especially after President Obama began pummeling Republicans with the issue.

MATTHEW CHINGOS, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: This small policy issue that the President has made a big deal out of has, in many ways, been overblown.

SANCHEZ: Mathew Chingos is with the Brookings Institution.

CHINGOS: I think interest rates are certainly important, but the policy he's talking about is really about an interest rate on one type of federal loan, and only on new loans that will be issued in July and going forward.

SANCHEZ: For Republicans and Democrats, says Chingos, it's just one more issue with which to attack each other. But more importantly, it's a lost opportunity.

CHINGOS: So I think the President got the whole country talking about higher education, focused on this one piece, when there's a much broader set of issues about affordability.

SANCHEZ: Chingos says a serious conversation about college access, costs, and reforming the federal student loan program has given way to political bickering that does little to help students. Congress has less than eight weeks to come up with a relief plan. Claudio Sanchez, NPR News.

With six months until Election Day, conspiracy theories are percolating on the Internet like bubbling mud pots at Yellowstone: Left-wing billionaire George Soros is going to rig the election for Barack Obama. Foreigners will oversee the nation's entire vote-counting system. The fix is in, and all is lost.

Before conservatives go all Michael Moore-moonbatty, let's calm down and separate voter fraud facts from fiction. There's no time to waste worrying about manufactured scares. And there are plenty of legitimate threats to electoral integrity without having to inflate or concoct them.

FACT: Scytl is a Spain-based business that specializes in "electoral security technology" and electronic voting applications. Its cryptographic research initially was funded by the Spanish government's Ministry of Science and Technology and later was spun off as a private-sector e-voting venture.

FACT: In January 2012, Scytl acquired U.S.-based SOE Software. SOE writes "election management" programs that assist officials with everything from "Internet voting to election night reporting and online poll worker training."

FICTION: According to alarmists, Scytl's acquisition of SOE amounts to a complete takeover of America's election system. No, not really. While SOE boasts of a presence "with 900 jurisdictions as customers in 26 states," there is no single contract that the federal government has entered into, or could, with Scytl to count the 2012 presidential election votes. Much of the work Scytl/SOE analysts do is number-crunching and graphics software work after local and state officials have done the vote-counting.

Scytl does have a contract with the feds to use its technology to help overseas and military voters participate in elections. In 2009, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act mandated that U.S. jurisdictions allow uniformed and overseas citizens to receive and track their ballots electronically. Scytl's online ballot program was used in 14 states during the 2010 midterms.

FACT: The security risks of e-voting are still a legitimate concern. University of California at Berkeley computer science professor David Wagner wrote a critical report for the Pentagon about the privacy and accuracy shortcomings of Scytl's military voting program in 2004 — which prompted the feds to cancel the initial program, according to PBS.

In October 2010, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics encouraged outside parties to try to find security holes in their online balloting infrastructure operated by Scytl. A group of University of Michigan students successfully hacked into the system, commandeered passwords, doctored ballots and programmed audio of the school's fight song to play whenever an e-ballot was submitted.

Hackers from Iran and China also came close to breaking in. "After the hack," according to AOLNews.com, "(D.C.) administrators decided to relaunch under a download-only format, allowing users to access ballots but forcing them to fax or mail them rather than cast a vote online." The D.C. official who oversaw the system, Paul Stenbjorn, now works for Scytl.

FICTION: Chain e-mails about Scytl claim that George Soros owns, operates or controls Scytl. In reality, the company's investors are Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker SCR. Soros doesn't "own" any of these international venture capital firms — and as far as my research shows, he has no involvement whatsoever with any of them. Moreover, Scytl's board of directors doesn't include anyone with Soros financial or management ties. Pressed for evidence, one Internet conspiracy nut cited an "invitation only event" in Moldova that listed both the "Soros Foundation Moldova" and Scytl as attendees.

Soros has enough explicit ties to President Obama's administration and campaign without having to embellish them. Just this week, The New York Times reported that he will donate $1 million each to a Democratic super-PAC and a leading progressive get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation. Soros previously funded Project Vote, the notorious voter-mobilization arm of fraud-perpetrating ACORN for whom Obama canvassed in Illinois.

And that brings us to the less exotic, but far more routine, kind of election insecurity that plagues the country. Hardware and software will never be completely fail-safe, no matter where it originates. But it's the people, personnel and voter registration and verification rules in place right here at home that matter most.

FACT: Over the past five months, investigative journalist James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas team have exposed systemic lapses at precincts in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington, D.C. The ballots of famous public figures have been forked over to complete strangers; disenfranchisement of legitimate voters is routine. While Minnesota and New Hampshire legislators have passed new voter integrity/identification laws, O'Keefe now has been targeted for investigation and possible prosecution for blowing the whistle. And Attorney General Eric Holder is striking his usual see-no-evil, shoot-the-messenger, play-the-race-card pose.

The solution isn't to sit back and bemoan a fantastical global conspiracy. The solution is to get off the couch, support election integrity activists like O'Keefe, and turn out in force on Election Day to eject Obama's voter fraud coddlers. Like the old saying goes: If it ain't close, they can't cheat.

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

National Public Radio did a classic pirouette of one-sidedness on All Things Considered Wednesday night. For comment on Obama' s "evolution" on gay marriage, NPR invited only a "leading advocate of same-sex marriage," gay activist-pundit Andrew Sullivan, now writing for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. There is no time for the social conservatives, just the gays.

Sullivan oozed about Obama: "I think he let go of fear today, the fear that somehow by embracing this natural, obvious and I would say conservative development he was sometimes — somehow embracing political calamity. He wasn't, he isn't, he won't." NPR anchor Audie Cornish asked him if this was about fundraising, but he just praised Obama's (and America's) evolution:

CORNISH: It's also been noted that a lot of the big-money donors in the Democratic Party are gay and lesbian. And you've suggested that maybe this all just has to do with money. And do you still feel that way?

SULLIVAN: I told you how I feel. Analytically, I do think, look, we're talking about politics here. And I do think that with Wall Street being less generous than they were in 2008, gay donors and gay support is actually critical to fundraising. And I think many leading gay activists just told the White House quite clearly that if you were not do to this, then their support would not be forthcoming, especially after he declined to enforce an executive order banning discrimination against homosexuals in federal contracting.

So –  but I didn't see that today. I mean, I'll see the whole thing tonight. I didn't see it today. I saw today the man I watched for five years now. And that is whom I heard in, as long ago as 2007, tell the mother of a gay son, I want your son to be equal and to have every right that a heterosexual has. I think getting past the M-word for him was a struggle. I don't he's alone in this. And I don't think it's crazy for people to feel this way. But I think he's evolved as Americans have evolved, suddenly rather quickly. And I think this is how it happens, suddenly rather quickly. What seemed unthinkable becomes obviously right.

Remember this the next time NPR asks for your donation. Oh wait! They don't have to ask for your donation. They take it out of your paycheck.

Appearing as a guest on Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor on FNC to discuss his recent criticism of President Obama on the tax issue, former Saturday Night Live comedian Jon Lovitz accused President Obama of being "not honest" in critizing the wealthy for not paying enough taxes, complained that the President is being "divisive," and asserted that "it makes me angry" because Obama is "pitting Americans against each other." Lovitz:

I respect the guy. I think it's amazing what he's achieved in his life, but, on this issue, I think he's being not honest, let's say, you know, and it makes me angry because I believe that he's, this whole one percent versus the 99 percent, it's pitting Americans against each other.

The liberal comedian soon reported that most of his left-leaning friends agreed with his criticism of Obama's class warfare rhetoric as he elaborated:

Almost everybody agrees with me. You know, people say, yeah, yes, because – and most of my friends are Democrats, you know, I'm a Democrat – but, yeah, they agree, they say, "Hey, I work really hard, I pay a lot of taxes," because it's not true, you know, and I think it's just a divisive way to appeal to the masses to get votes, and it's just blatant and obvious. And there is no versus, no one is trying to hurt people who are in the lower income tax bracket. We should all be helping each other and bringing everybody together.

We're all in this. I was in New York when 9/11 happened. It wiped out all the class structure because it was like being on the titanic. You know, you're in fourth class, you're in first class. Everybody's on the same boat. We need to help each other, and he's being divisive.