Hollyweird elites launch effort to “free Polanski”

The names include Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese. The idea? Urging Switzerland to free admitted child rapist Roman Polanski. Not that we didn’t know that the Hollywood left was morally bankrupt already, but make sure you read that link for a more complete list of Hollywood movers and shakers, including well-known actors and actresses, producers and directors, weighing in in defense of Polanski. It’s truly stomach-turning.

Unearthed in the midst of all this drama? An interview Polanski did in 1979 in which he made these remarks regarding his crime and arrest:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Considering the degenerate “entertainment” environment he’s worked in for decades – an atmosphere that promotes anything from the lesbian rape of a minor to outright pedophilia (including supporting at least one convicted director/pedophile), does that statement – and the defenses of this child predator – really surprise anyone?

In any event, this controversy may be doing something rarely seen in the US anymore: uniting everyday conservatives and liberals. Check out some of the reax from the commenters at HuffPo over the HuffPo’s support of a release of Polanski.

Nice to see that at least a few liberals get it on this issue. Too bad they won’t remember it the next time some far leftist celebrity does something like, oh, post a fantasy about killing a Republican politician. Hey, it’s happened before

Berzerkeley strikes again

The SF Chronicle reports on how the Berkeley City Council will vote tonight on whether or not to become the first city in the US to “independently try to comply with U.N. treaties on torture, civil rights and racial discrimination” (via Dan Riehl):

The measure would require the city to file biennial reports to the United Nations on how – or whether – the city meets international human rights standards. In Berkeley, that could include its record on homelessness, the achievement gap among different racial groups at Berkeley High and the presence of John Yoo, a UC Berkeley School of Law professor and Berkeley resident who authored the Bush administration’s justification for torture.

“It’s critical that cities and counties, not just nations, make these reports to the U.N.,” said Ann Fagan Ginger, head of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute in Berkeley. “To relate directly to the U.N. is the closest way we have of supporting the rights spelled out in these treaties.”

Unpaid law students at Ginger’s institute and volunteers on the city’s Peace and Justice Commission would compile most of the city data for the United Nations. City staff would chip in if more work is needed, according to the city manager.

Berkeley would be the first city in the country, and possibly the world, to submit its compliance records to the United Nations, said Yves Sorokobi, a U.N. spokesman in New York.

“We welcome citizen participation in trying to uphold these treaties, but in general they are directed toward countries,” he said. Berkeley “has taken the lead here.”

I have a better idea: Why doesn’t Berkeley just secede from the state of California and this country, and become a member state of the UN? That way, if this country is ever attacked on the left coast, they’ll have to rely solely on the UN for defense. That way, whenever this country does something that goes against the socialistic ideals of the fruitcakes in Berkeley, they no longer have to dramatically reaffirm how “ashamed” they are to be “Americans.” That way, when a caravan of Berzerkeley citizens travels overseas in support of the “Palestinian cause” the US military will not have the authority to rescue them when they get in over their heads. That way, the next time they get involved in something spectacularly stupid, I don’t have to feel embarassed over something stupid and self-serving another American city is doing in the name of “human rights.”

Shall I continue?

Great advice on the left’s race-card playing

Don’t allow them to define the parameters of the debate. Black conservative Lloyd Marcus writes:

I am so sick of the Left being allowed to make the rules. Imagine the absurdity of a competition in which one side is allowed to set the rules against their opponent. The Left tells us what is racist. The Left tells us what we can and cannot say. The Left published a cartoon depicting former black Secretary of State Condolezza Rice as an Aunt Jemima; another depicted Rice as a huge-lipped parrot for her Massa Bush. Neither were considered racist by their creators or publishers, or even widely condemned on the Left.

In opposition to black Republican Michael Steele’s campaign to run for U.S. Senate, a liberal blogger published a doctored photo of Steele in black face and big red lips made to look like a minstrel. The caption read, “Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house”. Not one Democrat denounced these racist portrayals of black conservatives.

And yet, a sign seen at a tea party depicting Obama as a witch doctor is considered by the Left to be beyond the pale and obviously racist. Why is the Left, given their track record of bias, granted final authority to determine the intent of the sign? Why do we conservatives so quickly and easily allow ourselves to be put on the defensive?

The rules set by the Left are extremely clear. Racist images of black conservatives and negative images of Bush are fair game. Even a play about murdering President Bush was called “harmless art”. Meanwhile, all unflattering images of Obama are racist, and constitute dangerous, potentially violent hate speech.

Read the whole thing.

Mark Steyn responds with some advice of his own:

But, if we’re talking about letting the Left “set the rules,” Mr. Marcus’s column reminded me of a larger point: Don’t take your opponents at face value; listen to what they’re really saying. What does the frenzy unleashed on Sarah Palin last fall tell us? What does Newsweek’s “Mad Man” cover on Glenn Beck mean? Why have “civility” drones like Joe Klein so eagerly adopted Anderson Cooper’s scrotal “teabagging” slur and characterized as “racists” and “terrorists” what are (certainly by comparison with the anti-G20 crowd) the best behaved and tidiest street agitators in modern history?

They’re telling you who they really fear. Whom the media gods would destroy they first make into “mad men.” Liz Cheney should be due for the treatment any day now.


The media would like the American Right to be represented by the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, decent old sticks who know how to give dignified concession speeches. Last time round, we went along with their recommendation. If you want to get rave reviews for losing gracefully, that’s the way to go. If you want to win, look at whom the Democrats and their media chums are so frantic to destroy: That’s the better guide to what they’re really worried about.

Yep. They’re worried about real change, a change in the way people think, act, and feel about government intrusion into every aspect of our lives. They’re worried that the smaller government message might start getting through to people, and that those same people will start rejecting big government fascism and abject moral relativism.

Take a look at how the murder Census worker Bill Sparkman in Kentucky is being played out by the far left. Make no mistake about it: They WANT the perp to be some anti-government nut. That’s why the MSM is pursuing it, and why the left keeps “speculating” over details that are very sketchy at the moment. It’s pretty pathetic when your political opposition wishes for someone’s murder to be as a result of some political bias. You know why this happens, right? Because the left believes if they can use a few nutballs to paint an entire party as “nuts” and “crazies” then they can use the victims of the senseless crimes to promote the idea that the right are nothing but fringe lunatics whose opinions on any issue shouldn’t be taken seriously.

It’s why the MSM and the far left have engaged in a concerted effort to brand the Tea Party movement, for example, as nothing but “racists” who all believe Obama is Hitler. Of course they always manage to leave out reminders of the almost daily comparisons of Bush to Hitler by leftist icons in the anti-war movement, and other anti-Bush types like Code Pink who routinely marched against the administration. Funny how the “Kill Bush!” and “Bush is Hitler!” posters, and the routine acts of violence against military institutions (for example) were portrayed as mere “fringe” acts but yet a handful of “O’Hitler” signs – some of them carried around by LaRouche DEMOCRATS who support single payer healthcare – and a handful of violent acts by mentally ill anti-government types all of a sudden makes it an “epidemic” that “must be” addressed.

Contrast this with how the left always bashes the right for allegedly ‘broadbrushing” all Muslims for the acts of Islamofascists. “Look at the number of Muslims in the world, and then look at the number who commit acts of violence. It’s a tiny percentage of the population, so this is not a widespread problem” they assert (paraphrasing) . Assuming that’s true, can we start applying that rule to the number of Republicans living both here and the US and abroad and the acts of political violence committed by a tiny few? Same same for the number of Christians around the world versus the rare acts of violence carried out by a tiny few in the name of Jesus? I won’t hold my breath waiting for the left’s standards on this to be consistent. They don’t want to be. It’s all about eliminating legitimate voices of opposition by making mainstream Americans believe the opposition are nothing but backwater fruitcakes. It’s the “By Any Means” strategy – alive and well, and brought to you by Rahm/Axelrod and Co.

Never forget that.