Big difference between what Comedy Central aired (standard Mediaite vapors there) and the full interview with Jon Stewart and FNC’s Bret Baier, which Comedy Central posted online.

Not sure which is my favorite part:

1. When Jon Stewart refuses to admit Charles Krauthammer is a genius.
2. When Jon Stewart has to use the KKK to defend the Caucasian-ality of his anti-Beck rally.
3. When Bret Baier calmly explains to him the necessary difference required in interview styles when one president (Bush) give you three hours and another (Obama) gives you fifteen minutes.
4. When Baier says to Stewart, “At least I didn’t call the president ‘dude.’”
5. Stewart’s playing intentionally dumb so he can pretend he, and therefore we (the great ignorant unwashed), can’t tell the difference between straight news and opinion news.
6. Baier getting Stewart to admit there is hard new on FOX.

—–

—–

Baier did a great job.

——

The Daily Caller has more:

According to Krauthammer, although conservative events like tea party rallies have been criticized by liberal pundits as being racist, the demographics of such tea party events pale in comparison to those of Stewart’s event.

“You say, ‘Yes, that was a white rally but it was nowhere near as white as the Jon Stewart rally,’” he said. “That was whitest of all rallies ever held – in D.C. on the Mall. So you can say ‘the whitest rally since the Jon Stewart rally on the Mall.’ I’m not sure how he’ll take that, though. It’s worth mentioning.”

We’re looking forward to Brett Baier’s appearance, especially the part where Jon Stewart whines about Glenn Beck not coming on a show that’s gone out of their way for years to humiliate him.

Brought to you by award-winning writer and director Stephen Bannon, Generation Zero is the first film in the “Tea Party Trilogy,” which also includes Fire from the Heartland and Battle for America.  Featuring financial and cultural experts, authors, and pundits, including Lou Dobbs, Lawrence Kudlow, Tobin Smith, Victor Davis Hanson, Shelby Steele, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, and Newt Gingrich, Generation Zero exposes the untold story of how the mindset of the Baby Boomers sowed the seeds of economic disaster that will be reaped by coming generations. Sean Hannity did an exclusive one hour special on Generation Zero, and the documentary has received extensive media acclaim.

This month, the Obama Administration will be making decisions that will have a major impact on the future of our country and economy.  From the upcoming debt ceiling fight to a possible government shutdown, March 2011 will be a big test to see if we can restore America’s fiscal sanity.  Generation Zero will give you the perspective needed to see how we got into this financial mess in the first place and what we can do about it.  Our leaders have a chance this month to address it before the next crisis occurs, if only they will listen.

Soros is also bankrolling a documentary that celebrates left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. Even worse, you too are bankrolling the film through your taxes.

A trailer for the left-wing film Better This World suggests that it depicts David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder as idealistic activists who, according to the official blurb, “set out to prove the strength of their political convictions to themselves and their mentor.” In fact McKay and Crowder are convicted domestic terrorists who manufactured instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.

You can be sure that if it was right-wing terrorists who were plotting to attack the Democratic National Convention, whoever foiled the conspiracy would be immortalized in film, literature and song as a savior of democracy.

“If you flip the equation around and it had been a group of conservatives threatening to use force to prevent those on the Left from meeting, everyone would expect the government to infiltrate them and they would also expect the FBI to stop them and charge them with crimes,” said Brandon Darby, who helped the FBI thwart the planned attack. (Darby’s essay on political violence appeared on Big Government over the past weekend. Read it here.)

The movie, which is expected to be released this year, attacks Darby, a true American hero who undermined the conspiracy by alerting the FBI. Filmmakers Katie Galloway and Kelly Duane de la Vega twist the facts to argue that Darby, a former revolutionary activist, manipulated McKay and Crowder into becoming would-be mass murderers.

It’s an easily disproved lie. During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis went out of his way to make a specific legal finding that McKay obstructed justice by falsely accusing Darby of inducing him to manufacture the incendiary devices.

McKay and Crowder had made homemade riot shields and were ready to use them in St. Paul to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center. The goal was to shut down the democratic process by preventing GOP delegates from participating in the convention. The shields were discovered and confiscated.

During a search of a residence, police found gas masks, slingshots, helmets, knee pads and eight Molotov cocktails consisting of bottles filled with gasoline with attached wicks made from tampons. “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer,” Darby said.

Thanks to Darby’s cooperation with the FBI, the two aspiring bomb throwers are now languishing in prison. McKay entered a “guilty” plea and was sentenced in May 2009 to 48 months in prison plus three years of supervised release for possession of an unregistered “firearm,” illegal manufacture of a firearm and possession of a firearm with no serial number. A week before, Crowder cut a deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 months in prison for possession of an unregistered firearm. McKay received the stiffer sentence in part because he fabricated the tall tale about Darby’s involvement in the plot.

Of course, it should surprise no one that Hollywood loves this kind of story with its anti-American overtones. HBO gave a grant to the filmmakers to produce their pro-terrorist propaganda. So did the Soros-funded Sundance Institute. After Soros’s foundation, the Open Society Institute (OSI), gave Sundance’s Documentary Film Program $4.6 million in 2002, it gave the institute another $5 million in 2009.

Taxpayers also underwrite Sundance’s adventures in social justice indoctrination. According to nonprofit tax returns (known as IRS Form 990s), the Sundance Institute has taken in $11,240,081 in government grants since 1997. It is unclear which governments made the grants because the 990 forms lump all the grant-making governments together.

The federal government has given $1,350,000 to the institute since 2000, according to USAspending.gov. All but $5,000 of the money was from the National Endowment for the Arts. (The $5,000 grant was from the State Department.) It’s not clear if the $1,350,000 is part of the $11 million-plus figure for all government grants.

Upon receiving the most recent OSI grant, Sundance founder Robert Redford obediently genuflected before Soros. “Sundance Institute has supported documentary storytellers since its beginning,” said Redford. “The recognition of that history by George Soros and the Open Society Institute, and the continuation of our relationship over time, speaks to our shared belief that culture—in this case documentary film—is having a profound impact in shaping progressive change.”

Soros himself has acknowledged he is interested in the movies because “[d]ocumentary films raise awareness and inspire action.” He hails cinema for its power to manipulate audiences. OSI has been underwriting “social justice” documentaries since 1996. In 2001 Soros let Redford’s Sundance Institute take over management of his Soros Documentary Fund, which has since rechristened the Soros/Sundance Documentary Fund. (See Foundation Watch, March 2008).

In 2005 Soros acquired 2.6 million shares of the huge diversified media company Time Warner. In 2006 his companies, Soros Strategic Partners and Dune Capital Management, paid $900 million to buy the DreamWorks SKG film library from Viacom, a move that gave Soros the DVD and rebroadcasting rights to films such as Saving Private Ryan (1998), Gladiator (2000), and American Beauty (1999). As James Hirsen noted, the transaction gives Soros “some highly desirable film rights at a time when the marketing and distribution model is changing to video on demand, video iPods and other forms of digital distribution.” But more importantly, it gives Soros “a presence in Hollywood where likeminded libs are ready, willing and able to collaborate in cinematic social engineering.”

Soros is also venturing into media overseas. In 2008 Soros Fund Management plunked down $100 million for 3% of India’s Reliance Entertainment, a $3 billion conglomerate that aims to provide Internet-based TV programs in India. Reliance also churns out movies and owns movie houses, radio stations and social networking websites in the country with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. When in the 1980s Soros set up offices in Eastern Europe for OSI, he helped to finance publishers, independent TV and radio outlets, and political parties.

As writer Rondi Adamson observed, “most of the documentaries that receive Sundance funding are highly critical of some aspect of American life, capitalism or Western culture. The projects generally share Soros’s worldview that America is a troubling if not sinister influence in the world, that the War on Terror is a fraud and terrorists are misunderstood freedom fighters, and that markets are fundamentally unjust.”

The 2009 Sundance Film Festival screened the documentary Disturbing the Universe. The recently deceased Communist historian Howard Zinn described the movie about radical anti-American lawyer William Kunstler as “a wonderful, inspiring film.”

Putting America in its Place

Undermining America and promoting radicalism is what Soros is all about.

Soros seems to want Communist China to become a superpower, throwing its weight around on the world stage. Weeks before President Obama’s visit to China a year ago the Financial Times asked Soros, “What sort of a financial deal should Obama be seeking to strike when he travels to China next month?” He replied:

I think this would be time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, a financial world order. They are kind of reluctant members of the IMF. They play along, but they don’t make much of a contribution because it’s not their institution. Their share is not commensurate, their voting rights are not commensurate to their weight, so I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in. [emphasis added]

In November 2010 Soros praised China effusively. “Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States,” he said.

It’s all in a day’s work for George Soros. And now he’s trying to control the media in America.

(Parts one and two of this comprehensive series can be read at Big Government)

(The full article appears in the January 2011 issue of Organization Trends, a monthly publication of Capital Research Center.)

Red Eye is hosted by Greg Gutfeld. Greg is so smart he makes Stephen Hawking look like Janet Napolitano at a national security press briefing.

Gutfeld’s sidekick is Bill Schulz. Bill is so funny he could make a femur seem humerus.

And finally, there’s TV’s Andy Levy, a guy so sharp that he blunts the knife in Charlie Sheen’s hand.

Welcome to the world of Red Eye, television’s last best hope for topical late night comedy.

In case you missed it, a report from Mediaite last fall said more people watch Red Eye on FOX at 3 AM than CNN’s prime time show at 8 PM.

“Red Eye averaged 432,000 total viewers and 202,000 in the demo. Let’s deal with the demo first – CNN’s 8pm ET show, hosted by Campbell Brown, averaged 191,000 in the demo. Let’s just let that one sink in – Fox News had more people in the all important A25-54 demographic watching their channel at three in the morning (east coast time) than CNN had for the show that leads off their prime time. This says as much about Fox News as it does about CNN. Wow.”

Wow, indeed. Red Eye goes everywhere late night comedy is supposed to go. A place where few late night comedy shows have dared to tread since a certain inauguration in January of 2009 when Andrew Breitbart wrote:

“In an era of extreme political correctness, when almost everyone is offended by almost everything, and with self-appointed advocacy groups organized to find offense on behalf of almost everyone – offensively, without the majority in the group’s consent – it’s nice to know that there’s a place to go where everyone can be offended almost all of the time.”

Red Eye has a noticeable libertarian streak and according to Wikipedia, Gutfeld, Schulz and Levy are all libertarians. While Wikipedia’s accuracy is questionable, I am absolutely sure that Greg Gutfeld deserves the 2009 award for libertarian quote of the year. During an interview with Reason TV last May, Gutfeld quipped:

“I became a conservative by being around liberals. I became a libertarian by being around conservatives.”

Last week, Greg mentioned that tonight, New Year’s Eve, Red Eye will air a special program at 12:30 am eastern time featuring some of the show’s favorite guests. I’m hoping for a mud wrestling match between S.E. Cupp and Ann Coulter.

I also have a suggestion for a 2010 Red Eye ratings bonanza in eight simple words: Tonight, Red Eye with special guest Charles Krauthammer.

Think of the comedic potential.

I couldn’t help but remember a favorite story that my wife and I tell on each other from time to time. Years ago, we were going through some counseling about our relationship (we’re totally cured now, of course. Just ask my wife). We had two counselors who were partners, one of whom focused on us, but both of whom knew our story.  After a considerable number of sessions had come and gone with no tangible improvement, one day my wife stormed into their office in an obvious fury to see our guy. His colleague, a wonderfully grumpy man, glanced up at her and offhandedly said, “What’s your problem?”

“My husband’s an a**hole.”

He responded flatly, “Maybe you’re the a**hole.”

We’ve laughed about this many times over the years, but it was a strange little turning point for us.  We remember  it often to remind each other always to make sure our side of the street is clean before we start complaining about the other side.

But in Maher’s case, there is just no “maybe” about it.

When I read his column, I realized something about Maher that I also realized about Obama a couple months ago, when he so badly botched the Gates affair in Cambridge: To them, it’s all about race.  Obama admitted that he didn’t know the facts of the case when he decreed that the police acted stupidly, but he knew the only facts that mattered to him.  Gates was black.  The officer was white.  Case closed.  Let’s have a beer.

In his column, Maher is either willfully lying or he is, to use one of his favorite projections, stupid.  He claims that Obama fired Van Jones because Glenn Beck told him to, which would mark the first time in history that Barack Obama ever listened to someone who disagreed with him, and then multiplies the dumbness by claiming that the reason Beck told him to was because he called Republicans “a**holes.”

Everyone from Charles Krauthammer to Beck himself said that Jones’s “Republicans are a**holes” comment didn’t bother them at all, Krauthammer famously stating that he’d called members of his own family that and worse.  Krauthammer even went on to say that Van Jones’s describing himself as an “avowed Communist” didn’t matter, since we’ve had a few Communists in our government before (see Maxine Waters).

No, Bill, it was Van Jones signing on as a “truther” that scuttled him.  You see, in the Obama Administration, you can call the opposition names (Obama does it himself), you can advocate the destruction of free-market capitalism (see previous parenthetical), you can accuse white people of intentionally poisoning minorities who work in their agricultural industries, and you’ll still be a remarkable addition to the team.  But even Obama can’t have a lunatic around who agrees with idiots like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell that President George W. Bush, the stupidest man who ever lived in their eyes, somehow pulled off the greatest crime and cover-up in history, by orchestrating the murder of 2,996 Americans and blaming it on Islamic terrorists, all so he could go into Iraq and avenge the attempt on his Daddy’s life made by Saddam Hussein. (Jonah Goldberg has a great takedown of this lunacy here.)

Maher loves to call people stupid as much as he loves to call people racists, as he made clear during his appearance on the Conan O’Brian show, where he said that Obama should just drag health care over the finish line with or without the support of the American people, because they are stupid.  Maher, like most self-righteous liberals,  pines for a nice a**hole dictator who would just ram whatever he wanted down the stupid peoples’ throats (assuming, of course, that said dictator is someone Bill Maher thinks is smart, like, say, Joe Biden).   To a third-grade mentality like Maher, Bush is stupid, Palin is stupid, Reagan was stupid, all the Tea Party protesters are stupid — everyone who doesn’t agree with Bill Maher is stupid.

I know you are, Bill, but what am I?

And in fact, Maher is provably so stupid that he wouldn’t know a truly ignorant, plagiarizing, buffoonish dolt if one bit him in the a** and then got his vote for Vice President. (Hey, wait a minute!)

But the racist label that Maher throws around is the true projection.  To him, Van Jones got fired because he became the “Scary Negro of the week on Fox News,”   and had nothing to do with his radical policies.

But the truth is that conservatives, independents, disaffected Democrats, and unlabelled Americans who disagree with the President do so on the basis of his policies and his philosophy. We look at the people he surrounds himself with and has throughout his life, and we listen to his stated opinions and intentions, and make a judgment based on them. Many of us who are old enough opposed Bill and Hillary Clinton’s health care plan back in 1994 in the same way we oppose it now.   It wasn’t racism then, and it isn’t now.

But the racist Bill Maher looks at Van Jones and Obama and only sees the color of their skin.  His recent disgusting skit based around the Drudge Report abbreviating Negatives to Negs featured racist jokes that we haven’t seen the likes of since Al Jolson sang “Going to Heaven on a Mule“  — or at least since Ted Danson wore blackface to impress Whoopi.

And to complete the projection trifecta, Maher calls others liars, while lying himself.  He says that Obama should stand up for the “70% of Americans who aren’t crazy.”   Where does  that figure come from?  I haven’t seen 70% in any poll about anything.  Maybe Bill just pulled that out of –well, I’m sick of those asterisks — the place on his body that he wants President Obama to become.

You know what, Bill?  Maybe we’re not all stupid lying racists.  Maybe we just disagree.

And the time for asterisks has passed, Bill.

Maybe you’re the asshole.

–

One of my liberal readers sent me an e-mail stating that the health care system in America is in terrible shape and needs a huge overhaul, which is why he was supporting Obama’s plan.  I wrote back to say that I agreed that the system needed fine-tuning, but, like Charles Krauthammer, I felt that the work consisted mainly of separating health insurance from employment and bringing about radical tort reform so that doctors didn’t have to spend more time worrying about being sued than they did about the health of their patients.  I went on to add that if I was wrong, things could always be changed, but if he and Obama were wrong, a huge federal bureaucracy would be created and you can’t kill one of those even with a silver bullet or a wooden stake through its heart.           

Speaking of money, I read recently that a child born in 2008 will cost his or her parents just under $300,000 to raise to the age of 18.  As if that’s not bad enough, it will then take another $100,000 or so to get him or her through college; at which point, after four years of indoctrination by tenured pinheads, they’ll come to regard their meal tickets as bourgeois ignoramuses.  My advice to prospective parents is to get a dog.  You’ll get unconditional love; they’ll never insist on borrowing your car and, best of all, they will never bite the hand that feeds them.           

Usually when people suggest that a picture is worth a thousand words, I, who specialize in doling out wisdom a thousand or so words at a time, take it personally.  However, even I thought the now famous photo taken at the beer summit was worth several thousand words.  While Cambridge police officer Crowley assisted the physically handicapped Henry Gates down the White House steps, Barack Obama blithely ignored him, far more concerned with having his picture taken than with helping his old friend. 

Speaking of Obama, every time I see him, the theme song from “The Jeffersons” starts playing in my head: “We’re movin’ on up to the east side.  To a deluxe apartment in the sky…We finally got a piece of the pie.”  There’s no insult intended.  Not to George Jefferson, at any rate.  He worked very hard, opening and operating a chain of dry cleaning stores.  He wasn’t a community organizer, which, in case you weren’t aware of it, is code for a left-wing activist.  Obama was up to his ears in dirty Chicago politics; Jefferson, on the other hand, was dedicated to cleaning dirty laundry. 

Because I had recently acknowledged that I had grown disenchanted with Bill O’Reilly, a reader asked me who my media favorites are.  There are several I enjoy, including Charles Krauthammer, Walter Williams, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham and Lee Rodgers.  A couple of others that I admire are Glenn Beck and Michael Savage.  Both convey a great deal of passion, and I find Beck very funny. 

Frankly, I don’t know why the fact that Savage has been denied entry to England hasn’t received the attention it deserves.  Like the member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders, the reason for his exclusion is the direct result of Islamic pressure groups.  Savage’s daily radio show, one of the highest-rated in America, isn’t even broadcast in England.  But that didn’t prevent Home Secretary Jacqui Smith from putting him on the same list of undesirables as known terrorists and murderers.  Smith declared in her announcement:  “We want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists.”  So, in a clumsy attempt to be even-handed, the loony Brits suggested that a Jewish talk show host was as dangerous as Muslim terrorists, neo-Nazis and a Russian serial killer. 

But I probably shouldn’t be throwing stones at the English, considering that Obama and his commissars are labeling Americans who just happen to oppose Cap & Trade, billions for clunkers and to the havoc the leftists are trying to wreak on our health care system, as brainless sheep.  Large groups of citizens rise up to voice their grievances and he calls them mobs, claims that grass roots are really made of Astroturf and tells his minions to ape the Soviets and rat out their friends and neighbors.  Some people I know refer to what Obama is doing as social engineering.  I think it’s something even worse: socialist engineering. 

I wonder if anyone else has noticed that whenever a black conservative voices an opinion, the liberal claque insists that he’s not an authentic black, and when a white conservative voices an opinion, Obama’s sycophants insist he’s not an authentic American. 

When Obama was running for the presidency, a few of us Paul Revere wannabes were warning you: “The reds are coming!  The reds are coming!” 

Naturally, Obama, a born and bred race hustler who learned his lessons well from Jeremiah Wright, wanted you to believe that the only reason people could possibly have for opposing him was his race.  But it was never about the color of his skin.  It was always about the color of his politics.

–

How about that bit of groveling before the Saudi King? “No, no, no, he wasn’t bowing!” said the loyal press contingent! ….no… “The president was reaching for something on the floor.” Oh hell, just spit it out!  It was a DVD of that sci-fi horror classic, “It! Sharia From Beyond Space,” wasn’t it! It fell out of the hole that Karl Rove neatly tore in your jacket. How else do you explain that bow?  You gawk, like a newborn camel, mysteriously fumbling about, and then we must listen to an American president kill, through disremembering, the memory of shed blood, leadership, proper pride, and financial philanthropy what have been the hallmark of American exceptionalism. These things were evident at least for as long as you were a… what?  A Com…..Community Organizer?  Is that what you once were? 

Charles Krauthammer properly characterized your behavior while appearing on Fox News:

Well where does one begin? Obama says, in America there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. …Well maybe it’s because when there was a civil war on Europe’s doorstep, in the Balkans, a genocide, it didn’t lift a finger until America led. Maybe it’s because when there was an invasion of Kuwait, it didn’t lift a finger until America led.  it’s because with America spending over half a trillion a year, keeping open the sea lanes in defending the world, Europe is spending pennies on defense. It’s hard to appreciate an entity’s leading role in the world, when it’s been sucking on your teat for sixty years as Europe has, in regard to the United States parasitically! …And then he (Obama ) goes on and he calls America arrogant, dismissive and derisive, regarding Europe…….I think what he did in order to gain the adoration of the crowds… he denigrated his country, in a way that I think is disgraceful.

Some United States citizens, Mr. President, cannot imagine why you would devalue the country that you supposedly represent. We noticed how easily upset you were to both spoken and written criticism. You publicly whined when you thought Sean Hannity, a mere talk show entrepreneur, wasn’t being fair with his public critiques of you and your mentor Jeremiah Wright.  You kicked three journalists off your plane because their respective papers didn’t support your presidency, and there was an observable reluctance to call on a TV correspondent from Fox News for quite some time. You are sensitive to things said about you, and yet you’re just brimming with cold and cavalier language about the great American populace that has elevated you to the pinnacle of world influence. Why?

When you return home, how sad it will be that you will not have been able to leave what you said in some tawdry saloon, perhaps spoken under the influence of alcohol or another depressant, and therefore forgivable by some stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, nothing will prevent you from bringing the fruit of your painstaking and laborious speechifying back with you.  And please don’t tell us, in your familiar way, that you inherited the very particular discord that will surely follow your return, as your fellow United States citizens finally realize that your revolution was nothing more than a turgid European melon;  green on the outside and on the inside, very, very red!

For the benefit of those who may not know, machine guns (not the same thing as the demonized “semi-automatic”), hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and other such military items are illegal to possess by US civilians, which means they are not for sale in gun stores. OK, in the interest of extreme accuracy for anyone in need, there are some civilian owned machine-guns in America, but they all have to have been registered with the ATF by 1986 as evidence that a special Treasury tax has been paid and the owner’s residence state has to approve the possession. What’s more, none of these arms has ever been involved in a crime, to my knowledge, and all are considered very pricey collectors items. That means they are not for sale to or in the hands of Mexican drug goons.

That raises some questions:

If Mexican gangsters are not buying military weapons in the United States, why do people like ATF officials, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, gun prohibitionists like Sarah Brady and multitudes of media talking heads claim they are while calling for an American “assault weapon” ban they say will to keep the Mexican drug gangs from buying what they really aren’t buying here because they can’t?

And if Mexican gangsters are not buying their military weapons in America from gun dealers as claimed, where are they buying them?

Confused? Well, as Fox News’ pundit Charles Krauthammer explained in one of his 1996 Washington Post columns, the answer to question one is quite simple:

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is symbolic — purely symbolic … In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation … Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain … Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work.

Krauthammer is able to so clearly state the obvious that most government officials, politicians, gun banners and reporters keep denying because he does not have to lie to voters in order to stay in office or keep donations coming in, as Sarah Brady does. Neither do I. So please note that all the public safety blather about “plastic guns” that can evade metal screener detection, “cop killer bullets” that are specifically made to murder police officers, “Saturday Night Specials” which are unsafe for anyone to possess (except for police — there’s always a police exception) and the other oft repeated gun control paradigms are simply bogus media ready scare phrases that have zero to do with public safety and everything to do with eventually outlawing the private ownership of firearms.

Maybe you agree with that goal and maybe you don’t, but that’s the object of “reasonable gun control” advocacy.

The answer to the second question is equally obvious. Gun running from the United States into Mexico has been going on since the 1800s. But the stuff bought or stolen here is not the military weaponry we are continually told is arming the gangs there. This paragraph from a Los Angeles Times story managed to get the story right even if nobody else in the media will report it:

Most of these [military] weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. . . . The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico’s, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say … These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

Stratfor, a private intelligence agency, noted more:

Grenades used in three recent attacks in Monterey, Mexico, and Pharr, Texas, all originated from the same lot delivered from South Korea.

So let’s recap.

Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, ATF officials and a host of others claim that an “assault weapon ban” against American civilians will keep Mexican drug cartels with gazillions of dollars in their jeans from buying military weapons on the international black market.

Hey, makes sense to me.

Latte anyone?