Michael Moore stricken with Consistent Inconsistenitis

Of the many maladies that afflict Liberals, maladies I have diagnosed in an effort to cure the Left and bring Liberals into the light of the founding principles, Consistent Inconsistentitis is especially troubling. This malady seems to rob those it attacks of the ability to stand on any belief for long. Typical cases include Liberals who are vehemently anti-war when a Republican is in the White House, but suddenly soften that opposition to the war when a Democrat assumes the office of  president. I could name many more examples, but I want to get to Michael Moore here. Moore is one of the most bitterly anti-second amendment Leftists out there. Every school shooting Moore resurfaces from his donuts to viciously berate gun owners, the NRA, and so on. One of the ideas that many on the Right, and some on the Left have put forward to hopefully prevent school shootings is to place armed guards in schools.

Several versions of the plan are out there, including mine. Some, like me, advocate for retired police/military to be hired to be in schools as a deterrent and as a first line of defense. Others have advocated active duty police, others have advocated allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to arm themselves in schools. The NRA on Friday issued a plan for police officers to be in schools, and the Left went ballistic, ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton placed police in schools during his presidency. Some on the Left mocked the idea of “part-timers” patrolling schools. Some feared that armed teachers would suddenly snap,  because liberals actually believe guns can hypnotize people and turn them into killers apparently. Moore of course, was among those outraged that anyone would dare suggest armed security for students. After all, clearly there is no place for armed security in Moore’s perfect Marxist Utopia.

Mocking the idea of self-defense is not new for Moore though, as is mocking the notion that armed security might actually deter or stop an evil person intent on murder. That is why Moore has armed security guards. Wait, what? Yes, here is where Moore’s inconsistencies catch up to him. Matt at Conservative Hideout clues us in on one of Moore’s security guys being busted for a, wait for it, gun violation. HE is important enough to have armed protection, but school children? Average Americans? They are not elites like Moore, or Rosie O’Donnell, who thinks gun owners ought to be imprisoned, but has no problem with armed security for her kids.

Hmmm, it is odd, Liberals freak whenever anyone suggests that guns can make us safer in any way, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, yet rely on ARMED security to make them safer. Michael Moore where IS your consistency? Of course, Moore’s first answer would likely be that his security is “trained”. Trained, it seems, well enough NOT to be familiar with gun laws. Of course, the Left does not stop at not wanting armed teachers, they do not want armed police either. So it is not the “trained”  part of the equation that they dislike. It seems that it is the idea of guns they find so troubling. Any gun, wielded by anyone, even law enforcement, in schools is simply unthinkable to Liberals. So why do Liberals not berate Moore who preach that guns are bad while being surrounded by armed security? Two words, Consistent Inconsistentitis.

Feminuts! They just cannot help being pissy and offended!

Oh no, a man noting the attractiveness of a woman has caused a severe outbreak of Offendeditis in California. Donald Douglas reports

And she’s the first Asian Chief Justice in California history, but turns out Democrat Assemblyman Charles Calderon is taking progressive heat for suggesting she’s an attractive woman. At Los Angeles Times,Senator demands apology for assemblyman’s comments on the chief justice“:

The head of the state Legislative Women’s Caucus called Tuesday for a state assemblyman to apologize for remarks that referred to the physical appearance and personality of the chief justice of the California Supreme Court.

Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) sought the apology from Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) for comments he made during a legislative hearing on a bill he introduced to give judges more say in the running of the state’s courts. Calderon said he meant no disrespect to Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

A transcript and tape of the Judiciary Committee meeting were not immediately available, but the assemblyman said in an interview that he was making a point that the bill was being advocated on policy merits rather than based on some bias against the chief justice. The assemblyman recalled saying his support for the bill has nothing to do with how “smart” or “nice” the chief justice is.

“It isn’t that she isn’t pretty,” he said in the interview, recounting his comments in committee.

Evans fired off a letter asking for a formal apology.

“Your remarks regarding the chief justice were degrading and inappropriate,” Evans wrote. “As the leader of California’s Judiciary, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye should be taken seriously and not spoken about in such a dismissive and frivolous manner.”

“It is crucial that women be valued for more than just being ‘nice’ or ‘attractive,’ ” Evans added.

When, exactly, did being called nice, smart and pretty, become degrading? Would the Senator have preferred the assemblyman refer to the justice as a mean, stupid, dog of a woman? Why is it that Feminuts have such an issue with attractive women being called, well, attractive? Is it because most Feminuts you see on TV make Rosie O’Donnell look like  prom queen? Petty jealously hmmmm. BTW, the judge is very sexy. You know if I wanted to piss off a Feminut, I would say something completely SEXXXXXIST, like, I wonder what i have to do to get that judge to hold me in contempt, but I would NEVER, EVER do anything to offend a Feminut.

Oh, I do wonder if I can get a ruling on the justice’s Rule 5 worthiness.

OH YES! And congrats to her on her success!