I recently criticized Michael Moore. Apparently I pissed off the church of the bleeding heart by attacking their high priest, because I have gotten a few comments that referenced the anger of the particular readers that I dare attack one of their own. Moore is a holy man to them, whether they admit it or not, his opinion is infallible, and his facts are irrefutable. And anyone that dares refute them risks the wrath of the membership of the church of the bleeding heart.

They deny Moore is out to make money. They truly believe his films are an altruistic endeavour, and that he wants only the best for the American people. And only Michael Moore is qualified to tell them what is best, because Michael Moore has suffered with the American people.

Michael Moore is nothing more than a left wing Ann Coulter. Except he isn't as hot as she is. The "facts" he spews are nothing but spin, and are open to debate. Whether you, me, or anyone at the Church of the Bleeding Heart likes it or not. See, this is America, and we are about free speech. And that speech includes the right to CHALLENGE people like Michael Moore.

Michael Moore accused our president and vice president of high treason. That should not be forgotten. While he did not directly state that, their actions, if every word of "Fahrenheit 9/11" were true, would certainly amount to such. He made a very serious charge, and he should be called to defend that charge. If his words are true, both Bush and Cheney deserve a rope with 13 twists securing their necks to an oak tree on the White House lawn. If they are not true, at the very least, Moore owes an apology to all he recklessly charged with such actions.

I'm not debating that SOME of his facts aren't true. ANd I'm not saying he's not done some good in the questions he is raising. But I am asking questions of Michael Moore, just as he is asking questions of others.

One of those questions that remains unanswered is why he rallied against GM's outsourcing to Mexico in the 1980's, yet remained remarkably silent while Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, effectively making outsourcing more widespread. While it's true that both 1992 "big two" presidential candidates supported NAFTA, it was CLINTON that added the caveat that NAFTA countries would need to adopt the same labor and environmental standards, then welshed on his end of the bargain. Had Clinton held up his end, it is likely the appeal of illegal immigration would have been lost because there were jobs and opportunity on that side of the border. As it stands now, however, Mexico is nothing more than a dumping ground for bloodsuckers wanting to exploit the workers to their fullest.

The truth is that both liberals and conservatives are to blame for our current crisis. And that effective solutions won't come about until we take a hard look at what needs to be done, even when our own side comes up looking dirty. Michael Moore is no more, or less, sleazy than Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken. And occasionally I actually respect him. But Moore, like all of the aforementioned, needs to be called to task when his "facts" are wrong. Anyone who blindly follows Michael Moore for their "facts" is as misguided as one who follows CNN or Fox.