Thanks for the Reminder, Hollywood

By Robert Wallace
America’s Right

As long as the only ones demanding the release of Roman Polanski from custody were a bunch of crazy Frenchies, I wrote it off as general European weirdness. I guess child-rape is okay there as long as you’re famous. What do I know?

Then American pseudo-celebrity Whoopi Goldberg offered her seasoned legal opinion that it was rape, but not “rape-rape”, and I chalked that up under the old rule that “there’s always at least one idiot.” But now it turns out there’s a lot more than one idiot — at least 100 filmmakers have signed a petition in which they “demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski.”

Stating they are “astonished” that police would waste their time over a “case of morals,” the petition argues that international film festivals are sacred places where ordinary laws do not apply. Sort of like embassies for visitors from Planet Self-Important. The petition calls for his immediate release and–implicitly–new international law to declare film festivals as No Law Enforcement Zones. So far over 100 “people” (I use the term loosely) have signed this petition, including Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci.

I could spend a long, long time explaining just where I think these despicable individuals can put their concerns about the rights of child predators to “travel without hindrance,” but what’s the point? When you reach a level where you can describe an adult in a position of power getting a child drunk, getting her to take off her clothes, and then raping her repeatedly while she begs to be taken home as a “moral matter,” we’ve reached an extreme of moral relativism where words logic, reason, and common human decency fear to tread.

If we can’t draw the line there, then the human race is done for.

But of course I don’t think the human race is done for because I don’t believe for a second that the even a small minority or ordinary Americans believe the bizarre and evil sentiments in that petition. A bedrock principle of the United States is that justice is blind, and we are all equal before the law.

Which is why America is and will remain a center-right nation.

Liberalism is fundamentally incompatible with the American spirit because it is intrinsically elitist. You simply cannot have government programs that guarantee everyone a place to live, education, a job, and health care unless you also have a government that has the power to heavily influence where people live, what we learn, where we work, and whether or not our disease or injury is going to be treated.

This is an inescapable fact of reality: whatever the government can provide, it must also exercise some control over. And since someone has to run the programs, the end result is inevitably a society where a few elites set the policies that determine how the rest of us live our lives.

I do not believe that most American independents and democrats want a society like that, but as long as masterful orators like Barack Obama get away with framing the debate in terms of things no one can disagree with (like solidarity and compassion, for example), the sinister other side of the coin–elitism–remains hidden. Unfortunately for the progressive cause, the last year has been very unkind to this illusion.

Remember how the US government has decided which companies received bailouts and which ones could fail? A government that can save some companies is automatically a government that can override the market to pick and choose between winners and losers. Think, just perhaps, that TARP and its consequences was an exceptional case? Maybe so, but the results don’t change, and just a short time later we saw evidence of that.

First, Obama bailed out the auto companies (in truth: the auto unions) and then he memorably fired the CEO of General Motors, a private entity. Now that’s what I call picking winners and losers. And so, we had another moment of clarity: the government might be able, in theory at least, to buy stock in a company without nationalizing it, but in practice forget about it. Then came the health care debate and Sarah Palin’s unforgettable “death panel” comment. Was it an exaggeration? Probably, but underneath lay another inconvenient truth. Only in La La Land is there enough for everyone. And that means in the real world we need to find ways of determining how to spend scarce resources.

In the free market, people are able to decide for themselves how they want to spend their scarce resources, but when the government takes over they lose that ability to choose. Just like the government can’t bail out companies without acquiring the power to pick the winners and losers, the government can’t provide health care services without picking–you guessed it–the winners and the losers.

You can try to make a serious case that government power is a necessary evil to save the economy or provide health care to those who can’t afford it, but that’s not what the Democrats are doing. They are trying to pretend that there is no cost in this equation. That you can have government intervention and a free market. That you can have free health care for everyone and at the same time cut costs, all without any rationing of care.

It’s absurd. It’s dishonest. And the only way they have any chance of getting away with it is to keep distracting Americans from the fundamental truth: what the Good Government giveth, the Good Government can taketh away. And that means the political class–those career politicians who demean and insult Americans peacefully protesting how the government spends their money–are the ones who get to decide when to give and when to take away.

Sounds like a great plan, doesn’t it?

All of this means it’s a pretty terrible time for Hollywood–a bastion of lefties so far left they make Dennis Kucinich nervous–to come out and remind everyone of the connection between liberalism and elitism. Sure, they say, he may have raped some kid a few times, but don’t you know he won an Academy Award!! Have you won any academy awards? Then clearly you don’t understand that artists play by different rules. These folks apparently think that international film festivals are as significant as the UN. And since neither one is remotely significant at all, that’s about the only thing I agree with them on.

I’m not saying that, deep down, all liberals are secretly pro-child rape or that you can’t be a liberal without campaigning for freedom for child rapists. I’m not even saying that this obvious Hollywood elitism is the same thing as the political elitism of the American left. What I am saying, however, is that since liberalism does require elitism, and since Americans would never accept that knowingly, the nut jobs in Hollywood–who happen to be liberal–could not have picked a worse time to publicly unveil the extent of their contempt for fundamentals of decency and justice the rest of us live by.

Or, depending on how you look at it, they couldn’t have picked a better time to provide us with the reminder.

Robert Wallace is classical liberal studying economics in graduate school. He and his wife work as business analysis consultants, and they live as undercover conservatives with their two small children in a socialist bastion of a college town. He has been writing for America’s Right since December 2008.



  1. Gail B says:

    Robert, you are so on-spot (as always).

    Have you heard ANYTHING that the leftist Democrats are promoting that enforces morals? If so, please write about it! I'd like to know.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Great job Robert. Not that you needed the kudos, but I usually write chastising responses to you, so to be fair, I need to be complimentary when it is clearly warranted.

    "Or, depending on how you look at it, they couldn't have picked a better time to provide us with the reminder."


    We, as consumers, have a choice upon whom we choose to reward for their ability. Frankly, for just this reason, I personally will refuse to use T-mobile due to their ad. (nice sample of Hollywood to hawk product)

    Using "Cat Stevens" at this point in history is disgusting and audacious.

  3. Robert Wallace says:

    "We, as consumers, have a choice upon whom we choose to reward for their ability."

    Agreed. An alternate headline for this article was "Time for a New Hollywood Blacklist", but I decided to drop the whole boycott/consumer blacklist idea from the article.

    But believe me, I definitely understand your feeling. No one who put their name to that list deserves a dime of my money.


    Great point, Rick.

    It kind of reminds me of the books and movies written and made about the hypothetical assassination of George W. Bush. "It's ART," they'd say.


    Great piece as always, Robert.

  5. John Feeny says:

    Fantastic article, Robert. The other part of this mental illness (in the case of Hollywood elites) is that despite the fact that they're wealthy beyond imagination and see themselves as the elite, inside they know they'll never have what the rest of us do:

    happiness and contentment.

    And they desperately, desperately resent us for it and want to pull the rest of us down into their morally-defunct morass.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Are we a nation of laws or not?

    Anyone wanting to give Polanski a free ride is not interested in our country's laws.

    While I do not advocate child molestation for perverts (any real man would want a woman, not a child), those signing the petition are also overlooking the fact that he broke the law when he fled and remained away all these years.

    And what a joke of a headline that Hollywood is our moral compass? Not for me or my children, thank you very much!

  7. Uncle Rick says:

    I distinctly remember a high school (or perhaps junior high school) reading assignment from the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini, the renaissance Italian sculptor. He had killed a man in a duel, but felt justified because he was a renowned artist, and, since such people as he make lasting — eternal in his mind — contributions of great value to all humanity, they must be excused from being bound by the same laws that apply to lesser people.

    We have been here before.

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

    Want to make a difference in 2010?
    Join GOOOH!

  8. Anonymous says:

    It IS time for a new age blacklist, in terms of boycotting this insane industry that looks down on upon and scorns the very people who enable it’s existence (that means you too federal government!)
    We the People made these idiots; We the People can break them as well!
    Boycott anything and everything that slaps regular Americans across the face –
    Don’t buy or see anything that involves any moron who signed that petition, boycott Starbucks for trying to lampoon tax payers protesting the government takeover of healthcare, tell your grocer and newsstand to get rid of Oprah magazine (I turn over the first magazine in the stand so the back cover is facing out at every place I see O magazine. Right back at you Oprah, you closet racist!).
    We have to fight back against Hollywood and liberals who are supporting child molesting and pedophilia (In addition to Polanski – deification of Michael Jackson and Harvey Milk, Safe School Czar who did not intervene when talking to an underage, suicidal boy who was having sex with an old man, NAMBLA, etc; )
    Where there is a will there is a way – and we must have the will to fight this evil in whatever manner we can!

  9. toto says:

    Its pretty evident to me that these "actors" have some sort of self importance. In fact, I say they have forgotton who they really are, as they are acting as someone else all the time.

    Since when did being a hollywood star make you someone who is an authority on anything, much less this issue, and the issue of governent.

    I say, JUST SHUT UP!!!!

  10. goddessdivine says:

    My celebrity crap list is growing daily. Whoopi was already on there. But Mr Ferrell made it after last week's shenanigan. These guys act for a living; they pretend to be someone else. Do they really think they have any credibility? I am so sick of their elitism.

    It won't be long until I can't see any movies because all the Hollywood idiots will be on my black list.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I just read the testimony and Polanski is a scumbag that should spend prison time! More time should be added for leaving and hiding out all these years. I don't care if there was a "settlement" out of court or if this grown lady wants him to go free, he broke the law and should pay for his crime.


  12. Anonymous says:

    Hollywood and Washington, DC have the idea that they can break laws, they can be immoral, they can do things "normal" people cannot. They think they are above the law. Too many insipid idiots to count, but the ones on the Hill are in for a rude awakening. They will no longer be welcome to take up residency in the halls of Congress, etc. due to their over-the-top antics. I for one want my politicians to have morals, a conscience, some humility, and most of all, the courage to stand up to these people.

  13. Robert Wallace says:

    Wow, I thought I was pissed before. Now this:,0,1755914.story

    These morons just don't know when to shut up, and the more they keep pushing their insane, evil depravity in our faces the more of a backlash they are risking. I mean just look at some of these quotes:

    "I think he's sorry. I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society." – Whoopi Goldberg

    Newsflash, Whoopi, in America we put people in jail for what they already did. Not what we think they're going to do. That's the difference between justice and the thought police.

    "My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." – Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation

    Yeah, because nothing says "feminism" like "raping little girls is OK as long as you're famous". I can't think of a more spitefully misogynistic thing to say than that.

    "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." – Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition

    Yeah, see, if someone had asked me to name examples of compassion I would have picked Jesus or Mother Theresa or something. You know, people who ate dinner rubbing arms with real-live poor people.

    But gee, I guess it's morally superior to throw a giant party, get drunk, and ask for other people's money. Now *THAT* is compassion. Am I right?

    And the fact that he's using that liberal rhetoric just makes it all that much more ironic.

    Yeah, keep talking about how much "compassion" you've got, and how morally superior you are. If only my high horse was as tall as yours I guess I could see why defending child rapists is the moral thing to do.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I say that every celebtard supporting him should have to take their own 13 year old son or daughter to a 43 year old perv who plies them with alcohol and drugs, then sodomizes them. Then they can open their mouths to say if they support him.

    How anyone could justify this man's actions and claim he served his time is beyond me. The amorality is astounding.

  15. Courtney says:

    Just had a thought – all these Hollywood leftists "elites" are all just really jealous of and wishing they could be like Ronald Reagan. An actor who actually had a brain and became one of the greatest Republican and CONSERVATIVE Presidents of the USA!

  16. Courtney says:
  17. Gail B says:

    And, John Feeny is right on all points.

  18. Gail B says:

    Robert, this is the political party whose school czar wants to masturbation taught in kindergarten, etc. They see nothing wrong with having sex with a chimpanzee on Main Street at high Noon with 30 minutes to draw a crowd!

    They don't care who or what they're married to, or for how briefly. They think instant self-gratification is the way to go.

    So what if Polanski emotionally damaged a child? He got his rocks off!

  19. Jan says:

    So, they want an international law declaring no law enforcement zones at film festivals. Better be careful what they ask for as any crazy lunatic could then walk in and start firing away and no prosecution. Wow, who thought that one through? What a bunch of imbeciles.

  20. Linda says:

    And to think they're wondering why revenues are down at the box office. Duh!!

  21. Rix says:

    I still believe that Monica Bellucci is the hottest woman drawing breath but gosh, she lost a lot of my respect. As for the rest, it is an usual assortment of deranged liberal creeps with Oprah, Whoopy and Woody Allen for cherry-on-the-cream.

    As for the actual case, I am surprised that an arrest has actually been made. Prosecuting a case where victim drops the charges without coercion or solicitation is, IMHO, a waste of money and public effort. Throwing him into a greybar motel for skipping is, however, a must-do thing if we still want a semblance of justice system.

  22. miracle2k says:

    Yeah, because nothing says "feminism" like "raping little girls is OK as long as you're famous". I can't think of a more spitefully misogynistic thing to say than that.

    I don't see where she mentions fame. I'm not a native speaker, so maybe this is just me.

    Actually, I'm pretty sure it's not me. Your obviously reading this wrong. Let me rephrase for you what she really meant:

    "This thing happened a long time ago; everybody, including the victim, has moved on; to the extend that I, as a person not involved in the case, just another member of society, have something to forgive, I do forgive Polanski; I don't see what purpose sending him to jail would serve, besides adherence to strict legal process; so if I had the power to pardon him, I would."

    For those who think it is absolutely a requirement that everybody be punished 100% as the law requires, ask yourself why presidents or governors have clemency powers.

    I would have picked Jesus

    Interesting. I wonder what Jesus would've though about all this.

  23. fleur says:

    The boycott of tv,movies and even music started last year for our house during the pre-election period. I dropped my cable tv and stopped going to the movies. Anyone who put down Sarah Palin or has a viewpoint so utterly outrageous as this list has been boycotted. I catch online streams of news on Fox or a show that isn't politically bent left and I listen to talk radio now. It's actually been great. My family took a little time to adjust. I can't stand how Disney has an agenda now and Nickolodeon has gone way left with their nonsense. We actually spend more time together as a family and the kids do more without the tv in the house and out of the house.

  24. Still a Patriot says:

    Thanks, Robert -

    I can't even think about what that girl went through without feeling like I'm going to vomit. Oh, but she dropped the charges – I wonder how much he paid her to do that!

    Miracle2k said:
    "Interesting. I wonder what Jesus would've thought about all this."

    He said that anyone that would harm a child would be better off drowning with a millstone around his neck, than to face his Creator.


  25. Gail B says:

    David Letterman Blackmailed–

    David Letterman blackmailed over alleged affairs
    By Michelle Malkin • October 1, 2009 10:08 PM

    I got a tip from several readers that David Letterman told his TV show audience tonight that he was blackmailed over his sexual trysts with staffers. One source says Letterman’s cast and crew have been told in a memo from a Rob Burnett not to post anything on any social networking sites and to refer media inquiries to Rubenstein Communications.

    On Twitter, tourist Joseph Dawson says that Letterman told the audience police arrested the alleged extortionist.

    Here’s a news item in Variety just out tonight:

    In an uncharacteristically personal revelation for David Letterman, the host took to his “Late Show” stage Thursday to admit that he was the victim of an extortion attempt — and acknowledge that he has had sexual relations with more than one staff member.

    According to a press release sent by Letterman’s PR reps, the host first received a package three weeks ago from someone who claimed to have information about alleged sexual relations he has had with female employees of the “Late Show.”

    The individual threatened to go public with the allegations unless Letterman paid him $2 million.

    Letterman told his audience on Thursday that he contacted the Manhattan District Attorney’s Special Prosecution Bureau. That led to a sting operation, in which Letterman met with the individual and handed the person a fake $2 million check. That person was arrested on Thursday.

    “This morning, I did something I’ve never done in my life,” Letterman said on Thursday’s edition of CBS’ “Late Show.” “I had to go downtown and testify before a grand jury.”

    As part of the testimony, Letterman admitted that he had engaged in sexual relationships with staff members.

    “My response to that is, yes I have. Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would,” Letterman said. “I feel like I need to protect these people — I need to certainly protect my family.”

    Very sorry to hear about the blackmail attempt. That’s a hellish and terrible thing for anyone to go through.

    As for the affairs with staff members and the damage done to his family, though, you can’t be too surprised given Letterman’s contempt for women.

    Hollyweird strikes again.

  26. Boston Blackie says:

    These people are as deep as a mud puddle. Hey Whoopie, why don't you leave your young grandchildren with Roman for weekend. If something happens, you know it wouldn't be rape-rape.

  27. JESUS says:

    "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea."

    Matthew 18:6

  28. Robert Wallace says:

    miracle2k -

    I started out trying to make a bullet-point list of all the things in your post that I disagreed with, but it's impossible. Just as the rational numbers are dense in the reals (between any two real numbers you can always find a rational number) your false statements are dense in your text. No matter how I try to separate the falsehoods, there's another one in between.

    "This thing happened a long time ago; everybody, including the victim, has moved on;"

    Let me be clear: this is a sick and twisted statement. What you're basically saying is "if the victim isn't wiling to press charges, we should let it go." So, just to try your logic on for size, if a young child is raped by her father we should just refuse to prosecute if she's not willing to take the stand and face down her father/rapist? Really? That's *your* idea of the criminal justice system?

    I don't know which is worse: the idea that you haven't paused to give a seconds' thought to the ramification your theory of criminal prosecution would have on vulnerable victims or the idea that you have given it thought and just don't care.

    It's all about the criminal, right?

    The victims can twist in the wind for all you care. If they're not big enough to stand up on their own, well then society has no interest in standing up for them.

    I don't call that justice. I call that exploitation of the exploited.

    "the extend that I, as a person not involved in the case, just another member of society, have something to forgive, I do forgive Polanski"

    No one care if you "forgive" Polanksi for something that he didn't do to you.

    No one.

    ", I do forgive Polanski; I don't see what purpose sending him to jail would serve, besides adherence to strict legal process;"

    How about strict adherence to *JUSTICE*. Is that something you understand?

    "if I had the power to pardon him, I would.""

    So, in your world, all you have to do to get a pardon after raping a child is avoid serving jail time for long enough?


    Tell me, who else would you pardon? I could write a long dramatic list of people who have committed heinous crimes, but let's just skip straight to a crazy one: Charles Manson. I mean, those crimes were back in the 1960s. Ancient history! Charles is 74. Who's he going to kill.

    So let's have it: Does Charles Manson get a pardon in your world?

    "For those who think it is absolutely a requirement that everybody be punished 100% as the law requires, ask yourself why presidents or governors have clemency powers."

    Because the criminal justice system doesn't always mete out justice. And so – when it breaks down – we have methods of circumventing it.

    Because justice is more important than the system.

    And there's no definition of justice that allows a man to repeatedly rape a young child and serve 42 days for his crime.

    42 days.

    "Interesting. I wonder what Jesus would've though about all this."

    The replies you got were so funny that I had to show my wife. I've never seen someone walk face-first into a wall of irony like that before.

    Before you go around quoting Jesus, try reading the *whole* New Testament, eh?

    Just a thought.

  29. miracle2k says:

    First of all Robert, I think it's great that you admitted how inappropriate your response to Ms. Yorkin was, considering what she said, and what you accused her of saying.

    "What you're basically saying is "if the victim isn't wiling to press charges, we should let it go."

    Of course not.

    "How about strict adherence to *JUSTICE*. Is that something you understand?"

    "Justice" has got to be the most evasive term right after "art". Compare the penal codes of different countries, and it should become obvious how much different peoples idea of justice varies. Justice is an abstract concept.

    Look, the core question is "Why do we punish? How do justify punishment"? If your answer to that is "justice", well, fine. But justice in that context is nothing but revenge/payback sanctioned by society.

    Other common answers include things like "deterrence" or "resocialization". It is obvious that those reasons lose their validity with the passage of time. For example, it'd be hard to argue that Polanski remaining unpunished will cause somebody to go "Aha! Now that I see how he got away it, I will go rape somebody".

    I will grant you that it'd be in fact pretty hard to justify a pardon for Polanski in the real world, and in this criminal justice system. Other people are not being pardoned after all either. That doesn't mean it's a moral imperative that one insist on him being punished.

    Don't hesitate to reflect upon your idea of justice once in a while. Not so long ago, people couldn't imagine justice without hanging, drawing and quartering.

    "Does Charles Manson get a pardon in your world?"

    If he were released tomorrow, I wouldn't be angry about it. Consider that a number of European countries don't even have "life without parole" sentences. In Germany, for example, parole is essentially mandatory after 25 years at the latest (the always existing exceptions notwithstanding).

    "Before you go around quoting Jesus, try reading the *whole* New Testament, eh? "

    No offense, but reading is only one part, you also need to try to understand it.

    Not only is it doubtful that the verse refers literally to children at all (, most translations also use a phrasing like "cause to sin" or "cause to stumble", which should make it clear that this is ultimately about tainting somebody's faith (see

    Of course, there are also five gazillion references in the Bible to Jesus being willing to forgive everybody and anyone, but I'm certainly not going to fight about bible interpretations here. Take from it what you will.

  30. Gail B says:

    So, who else has fallen victim to the likes of Polanski and Hollyweird elites?

  31. Anonymous says:

    idiot is right.
    and honestly, i dont think i have ever used that word to describe anyone.

    what he did is worse than rape.
    he also exposed the child now a woman to potential anal cancer down the line.

    the digust of it all is enough to immediately cross anyone supporting him off your list in any supportive way i.e., from watching them on tv, their appearances, movies, books etc.

    so if someone killed your mother some years ago and is found he should go free because it was X-amount of years ago? SICK MORONS!

  32. Anonymous says:

    get rid of the FBI Most Wanted List.

    you see, it was so many years ago.
    let the vile and disgusting roam free to visit you whenever they wish… IDIOTS!!! AND WHOPPI HEADS THE LIST…. not to mention the creep W.Allen… i began boycotting him years ago. i see his name as director of a film on my tv and i immediately click to something else.

Speak Your Mind