Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Michael Moore’


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 28, 2010

This may actually be the best thing to happen to Arizona since the passage of the illegal immigration law. This may be the thing that allures folks to come to the Grand Canyon State on vacation or convinces those still looking for a place to host their convention to go there.

Let’s hope so.

To fracturedly quote a well-known phrase: ‘Ich bin ein Arizonian.’

The muster of numbskulls, dimwits, half-wits and pampered millionaires who say they will be boycotting Arizona because of the state’s new illegal alien law is growing.

Not that any of these blockheads – who have profited beyond their wildest dreams in the land of liberty – know what is in the Arizona law.

Not that these knee-jerk twits actually comprehend what it is they’re supposedly taking a stand against.

Not that these sanctimonious savants of social-consciousness – lunkheads – even have a palpable clue what is in the Constitution of the United States (although they can quote, at will, the “Separation of Church and State” clause, and the government-granted “right” to “general welfare.”)

Now that a host of “artists” have decided to boycott Arizona – including rapper Kanye West and film maker Michael Moore – things are definitely looking up. In fact, Michael Moore’s promised truency from the state immediately ensures that there will be more food available for the metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Flagstaff.

Let the good times roll.


Zack de la Rocha has issued a statement on behalf of an organization called the Sound Strike urging music fans and fellow artists to boycott Arizona “to stop SB 1070,” which he labels an “odious” law.

Among those artists joining de la Rocha’s boycott are Conor Oberst, Kanye West, Rage Against the Machine, Rise Against, Cypress Hill, Serj Tankian, Joe Satriani, Sonic Youth, Tenacious D, Street Sweeper Social Club and Michael Moore.

In de la Rocha’s words, the new law “sanctions racial profiling, straight up,” forcing “cops to hunt down and target anyone they ‘reasonably suspect’ that may be undocumented. And if the people they harass don’t have proof that they were born in the U.S., they can be detained and arrested.”

This is an honest question, not meant to incite anyone, but for the purposes of clarification: Were all of these people born flaming idiots, or was it something that was cultivated over the course of time? Do leftists actually go out of their way to portray themselves as complete dunderheads or are they truly oblivious to the things they say?

What in the name of free enterprise is this dullard talking about?

There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the law that statess, suggests, implies or hints that police are going to be forced to hunt down anyone.

Is he serious?

Make note of Mr. de la Rocha’s choice of words: “And if the people they harass don’t have proof that they were born in the U.S., they can be detained and arrested.”



There is such wisdom on the left, isn’t there?

To begin with, being “born in the U.S.” is not the only prerequisite to being in this country legally. There are such things as legal aliens.

Second, the law clearly – unambiguously – states that people who are stopped or questioned in lawful ways (e.g., a traffic stop) can also be asked about their legal status if there is a reasonable suspicion that they could be here illegally.

I’m still waiting for an intelligible answer to the question: How exactly is that racist?

The real beef these whack jobs have is that illegal immigration laws are finally being enforced.

How dare Arizona apply laws already on the books.

And if I may get a little personal for a moment: In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ve been told I look a little Hispanic (if I may “profile” myself), and if a law enforcement official – or any proper authority, for that matter – wishes to see my identification, so be it. What do I care? I have nothing to hide.

The fact is, society is filled with measures that are in place to protect citizens while still preserving individual rights. For instance, my bags are checked before I enter Citi Field to see the Mets play. I’ve also had my knapsack checked several times before going on the Staten Island ferry. My pockets are emptied each time I go through an airport secutity checkpoint. My drivers license is produced every time I go to the post office to retrieve a package.

And so on.

So what?

I’ve been asked to prove that I live in my neighborhood when the street has been blocked due to a traffic accident or police investigation. I’ve been pulled over for traffic violations and have, undoubtedly, been “checked out” by the police.

Big deal. 

He goes on to note that “Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law (SB 1070) takes it to a whole new low. If other states follow the direction of the Arizona government, we could be headed towards a pre-civil rights era reality.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Disgustingly wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Profoundly wrong.

Since when is producing identification akin to Jim Crow?

Being asked for ID, or proper paperwork, is not an infringement of anyone’s civil rights. There isn’t a device in existence capable of measuring how asinine such an assertion is.

This is about illegal aliens – not citizens or legal aliens.

This is about following the rule of law in exercising this nation’s sovereign authority to properly and legally identify those who are not authorized to be here, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity.

This is about protecting American citizens and legal aliens, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity.

This unjust law was set into motion by the same Arizona government that refused to acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr. day as a national holiday. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, they arrested her. As a result, people got together and said we are not going to ride the bus until they change the law. It was this courageous action that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott. What if we got together, signed a collective letter saying, ‘We’re not going to ride the bus?’ “

The Arizona law, by definition, is absolutely just. The only distinction it makes is between legal and illegal.

What is unjust, however, is that illegal aliens are coddled by this country and given places to go where they can’t be punished for breaking the law. What is unjust is that the welfare of illegal aliens – along with winning the favor of the Hispanic voting block – is more of a priority for Obamacrats than protecting America’s own citizens. What is unjust is that the rule of law followed by those who went through the process of being here legally means nothing to those who demand “comprehensive immigration reform” and call those of us who support the sovereignty of this nation racists.

There is no rational or intellectually sound comparison to made between the struggles of black American citizens who were denied basic rights due to Jim Crow and people who are in this country illegally.

The website includes a petition urging President Barack Obama to take action.

“Arizona’s new law is an assault on the US Constitution and an affront to the civil rights that were earned by generations who came before us,” the petition reads. “When states disregard the Constitution, when they sanction mistreatment of communities, it is the imperative of the Executive Branch to take the lead in defending the U.S. Constitution.”

Again, how is the Arizona law an assault on civil rights? What is being denied? Whose liberties are being trampled upon? The only ones extricating liberties from the citizenry are the Obamacrats in charge. (Let me count the ways).

What is imperative is that the President of the United States do what the Constitution charges him to do – preserve, protect and defend this nation.

The only assault on the Constitution is coming from the left.


Update: May 29, 2010 – 9:40 AM

Proof, from the great Proof Positive blog, correctly points out that the proper way to express “We are Arizonians” in German would be:

Wir sind Arizonians.

Indeed, as Proof indicated, I had the choice of choosing the largely unfamiliar “Wir sind Arizonians” or a play on the iconic (and grammatically challenged) JFK line, “Ich bin ein Arizonian.”

I opted for the latter.

Thanks, Proof!

Now get to Arizona!


Posted in illegal immigration, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 8, 2009

Hannity speaking with Moore

Hannity speaking with Moore

If the world were void of clichés, empty bromides and feckless platitudes, how exactly would a leftist fill the time while being interviewed? If they could not rely on silly slogans and bumper sticker smugness, what else would they have to offer that could be passed off as substantive?

At the great Ace of Spades blog, Ace posted a portion of an exchange between fuzzy-bunny film maker Michael Moore and conservative commentator Sean Hannity. It was one of those back-and-forth television time-killers that changes no one’s mind, rarely goes beyond the time-constrained familiar superficiality of left versus right, and draws high-fives from supporters who believe their guy was head and shoulders better than the other.

(Of course, I love that kind of television).

Without actually posting the video here, I’d like focus on one small portion of the exchange between the two.

The segment in question involved Moore – thinker, philosopher, scholar – asking Hannity if he loved Al Qaeda because of Jesus’ commandment to “love your enemies.”

Hannity responded, “I love them in the sense I want to destroy them.”

Indeed, as Ace points out, it was a funny line – although I am skeptical that Hannity actually meant it that way. I am more inclined to believe that his response was the first thing off the top of his head as he tried to keep pace with the portly movie maker. (I certainly could be wrong).

Either way, it was a good line.

Ace then posts the following:

Incidentally… Hannity’s line is funny, but glibly dodges the question through humor. I’m curious how religious folks resolve this question in their minds.

As I’m not religious, I just flat-out hate Al Qaeda and feel no need to even attempt to “love” them, except in a Hannity sense of love. (Which, given that love is a battlefield, actually does make some sense, but I digress.)

The left loves trotting this chestnut out (and here Michael Moore trots out nothing but cliches, cant, and chestnuts, making Sean Hannity look positively contemplative), but I am curious as to the response to this.

He loves America, except for everything about it

He loves America, except for everything about it

There is a trap that most anti-religious types, like Moore, seem to stumble into that predicates the type of hostility they are prone to exude when confronting people of faith. Often they forget that Christians (or any religious people, for that matter) are as human as atheists and agnostics. Religious people do not claim to be less imperfect than anyone else. Indeed, they are subject to the same fallibilities and frailties as those who reject God. Yet, somehow, folks like Moore – who make a living at scoffing at the traditions and institutions of America, and routinely pull out words like “hypocrite” when describing a person of faith who stumbles – believe they are exposing the fraud of religion when those who try to live more righteous lives fall short.

Leftists use the human condition as a “gotcha” tool.

Another trap that angry anti-God types fall into is the one that suggests that loving others somehow precludes justice. The fact is, punishing those who commit crimes is neither related to nor dependant on love. One can love another, or pray for another, or wish for their genuine repentance, but still understand that crimes committed by that person must be punished.

What does one have to do with the other?

I can love my daughter or spouse, but if they are guilty of a crime, they must be punished appropriately.

Indeed, both Jews and Christians are commanded to love each other as individuals, but not necessarily to love groups, associations, or nations that perpetrate evil.

But even if one believes we are, so what? Who says that one cannot love someone and still fight them? (Think of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple).

The bottom line is … when an individual is engaged in an evil action, it is incumbent of us – indeed, God commands us – to stop that individual from harming the innocent. Even if violence is required, there is no inherent contradiction in stopping the evil-doer and loving that individual.

There is such a thing a moral violence.

Loving someone in not synonymous with letting someone “off the hook.”

Think of the famous verse from the Book of Matthew:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Mat. 5:38-39)

Does anyone truly believe that “turning the other cheek” really means one is to permit evil to run rampant? As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “In the context of World War II, do you think ‘turn the other cheek’ means that the United States should have rolled over and offered the West Coast of California to the Imperial Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii?”

Pastor Pastor Bob Enyart, in his commentary “God and The Death Penalty” writes:

peacePacifists have an unworkable interpretation of this passage. Imagine applying the pacifist view to a woman being raped? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Pacifist father to daughter being raped: “Don’t resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, ‘Love your enemy.’ If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two.”

Rather, this teaching is similar to Paul’s teaching, “Do not avenge yourselves,” knowing that the government is to bring wrath and vengeance against the perpetrator. The command to not avail oneself of “an-eye-for-an-eye” is not a strictly New Testament concept. Many falsely presume that this is a New Testament teaching which opposes Old Testament teachings. However, the command to avoid personal vengeance was just as applicable to Old Testament believers as to us. “Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work” (Prov. 24:29). Graciousness from the believer in his personal life is an enduring virtue and not a new concept.

Enyart goes on to explain that there is a distinction between individuals and governments, and that Jesus said so in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.” (Mat. 5:25-26)

Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God wants the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy. (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4)

In the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – there is only one law that appears in each of those books. It is the commandment to kill those who have murdered the innocent. Genesis 9:6, for example, reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

For me, as a Jew, this commandment is central to understanding how precious human life truly is. A murderer has no right to his own life if he has stolen the life of an innocent.

God requires us to fight evil.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book The Book of Jewish Values, writes:

Regarding those who set out to murder others, the Book of Exodus teaches that if a thief tunnels into a house at night and is discovered, the householder has the right to kill him. At first reading, this ruling seems surprising, since Jewish law forbids killing someone who is committing a property offense. However, the Torah assumes that a thief breaking into a person’s house at night, aware that it is probably occupied, is prepared to kill the householder; therefore, if the householder preemptively kills the thief, “there is no bloodguilt” (Exodus 22:1).

The sole exception is when the householder has reason to be certain that the thief has no intention of killing him or her (see Exodus 22:2).

In the Talmud’s language, “If someone wishes to kill you, get up and kill him first.”

The logic informing this Talmudic teaching applies to national as well as individual threats.

Think the War on Terror.

God commands us, “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.” (Leviticus 19:16).

If there is a better, more appropriate way to “love thy neighbor” than defending him against evil, I don’t know of one.

wordpress statistics

Posted in religion, Secularism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »