from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Obama's Hollywood Backers Stand Up for a Pedophile Rapist

Posted: 29 Sep 2009 11:29 PM PDT

Nearly a month ago many prominent figures in Hollywood and the
international world of film signed the Toronto Declaration pushing for the
boycott of a film festival that dared to showcase Israeli films. At the
end of this month, many prominent figures in Hollywood and the world of
film signed a petition calling for the immediate release of the rapist of
a 13 year old girl, who also happens to be a major figure in Hollywood and
the international world of film, namely one Roman Polanski.

It is instructive to watch the same people who lecture
Americans on morals and ethics in movie after movie, rush to the defense
of a pedophile rapist, whose chief merit is that he is one of their own.
Harvey Weinstein, the executive producer of Michael Moore's new left wing
agitprop movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, has been described as leading
the charge on Polanski's behalf. In a "The Independent" op-ed, the same
paper that has provided an extensive forum for bashing the War on Terror
as well as calls to boycott Israel, he described Polanski's drugging and
rape of a 13 year old as, "the so-called crime" and vowed that he was
prepared to go all the way up to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, another
Hollywood figure with a history of sexual assault charges, to fight for
Polanski's freedom.

The petition list of course includes no
shortage of the shining lights of Hollywood's Obama supporters, including
Martin Scorsese, who donated over 3000 dollars to Obama , Darren
Aaronfosky, who donated 2300, John Landis, who donated 500 dollars and is
best known for his role in the death of two children and actor Vic Morrow
on the set of the Twilight Zone movie, Julian Schnabel, who is listed as
donating 28,000 dollars, and former Clinton buddy Mike Nichols, who
donated 2300 dollars. Then there's Steven Soderbergh, who recently
directed a movie glorifying Che. Or Woody Allen, who left America for
France, where the local government is much more tolerant of pedophilia,
and has been bashing the United States ever since.

It is of course
possible to dive further down into the muck or to rebut the talking points
that have been trotted out, which in order of importance seem to be that
Polanski is a great artist, that his life was hard and that the case had
irregularities within it... none of which do anything but obscure the hard
fact that Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. But it is
more interesting to take a look at the values of the people who presume to
dictate American values and culture.

The Polanski case demonstrates
the radical differences between absolute and relativist morality. Either
rape is always wrong, or it's only wrong when it's "rape-rape", as Whoopi
Goldberg put it on the View. Either child abuse is always wrong, or it's
only wrong when you don't have warm feelings toward the perpetrator. There
are either absolute rights and wrongs. Or only things that are right or
wrong depending on how you feel about those doing them. And that is the
key point, without absolute morality, subjective morality in which there
is one law for your allies and another for everyone else takes hold. We
saw that same dual morality in action in the waning days of the Clinton
Administration when formerly people who claimed to have no tolerance for
sexual harassment, treated Bill Clinton as the victim, and his accusers as
the criminals. Today those same people are at it again with Roman
Polanski.

But this is more than a "behind the scenes" attitude,
instead it part of the cultural narrative that is transmitted over and
over again. Think about how often the "personal narrative" of a criminal
in a movie or TV show mattered more than whether he committed the actual
crime or not. It's rarely about the act and more often about the man, not
a nation of laws, but a nation of men. Relativist morality is defined not
by laws but by men, by our willingness or ability to empathize with the
actions of the perpetrator. This is why liberals so often castigate
Americans for a lack of empathy with murders or with terrorists.

Liberal morality is based on a politically motivated empathy. It
is not based on any actual morals, or sense of right and wrong that does
not derive from their political worldview. If you asked one of Polanski's
defenders who is the worse person, Sarah Palin or Roman Polanski, their
response would be as unambiguous as it is irrational. That response would
not be morally based, but based on who they politically and culturally
identify with, and who they find politically and culturally repulsive. Now
back up that same irrationality with a great deal of cultural influence
and front men who can make the facts fit even the most irrational
interpretation of reality, and you have the true ugly face of Obama's
backers.

As a moral code in which the morals are defined by a
political worldview, liberal morality is not one law, but two laws. One
law for Obama and another law for Bush. One law for Polanski and another
law for someone outside their circle of politically motivated empathy. And
it is never consistent with any objective moral value or legal code. The
same people who demanded that the terrorists be given every protection of
the law, argue that the law should be disregarded when it comes to
Polanski. The law is only the law so long as it's a tool for getting what
you want done. The moment it becomes an obstacle, it's a force of
injustice that must be fought.

That same relativist morality construct sheds light on how it
is possible to decry the right of the United States and Israel to defend
themselves against terrorists or detain said terrorists, while championing
the rights of the terrorists themselves to wage war against innocent
people. Relativist morality recognizes no objective rights or laws, only
"empathy" with those they sympathize with for political reasons. And that
sympathy routinely extends to "transgressives", to those pushing the
boundaries for what they view as great or progressive, to create a more
open and permissive world. By contrast their enmity is most attracted to
those they view as reactionary or regressive, who are closing doors and
creating a more restrictive and and orderly environment. To the moral
relativist, restrictive people represent true evil, and progressive people
true goodness. And as with Polanski, they are willing to make the facts
fit the label, if necessary, by treating Islamic terrorists as progressive
and the US government as reactionary.

As repulsive as the entire
Polanski case is, the rule of relativist morality has far more ominous
connotations. The United States was built as a nation of laws, one law for
all, great or small. Run that through the relativist filter, and the
United States becomes a nation where the law only applies if the elites
think it should, where the favor of the powerful and the famous counts for
more than justice. We know what such countries are look like. We have no
shortage of examples of them in the world around us and in times past. A
country of men not laws, is a tyranny.