• ROMAN POLANSKI: GENIUS, PEDOPHILE

THE SAD CASE OF 30 YEARS OF EXILE
It does not matter if the victim is 'over it'
Society needs to stand firm
Morality has suffered so many blows

Roman Polanski is the director of one of my very favorite films of all time -- The Pianist. A gripping film that follows the book very closely, it is a living, breathing document of the holocaust. I cannot recommend the film highly enough, both as an example of the finest in cinematic achievement, and as a history lesson that must never be forgotten.

And as much as I love the film and admire the filmmaker who made it, it certainly pains me to think of Roman Polanski the child rapist; Roman Polanski the pedophile; Roman Polanski the fugitive. After three decades he has been arrested in Switzerland, and is fighting extradition to the United States.

I hope he is sent home to be sentenced for his crime. I pray he goes to jail.

After so many years, the victim, now in her 40s, has said that she has moved on. It's not important to her anymore. I understand why she feels this way, and in fact I applaud her for this accomplishment. She has not held onto that grudge for 30 years, and that means her life today has value. She is not living as a victim of rape at the age of 13. She is living life as a woman in her 40s.

She has not held tightly onto anger and hatred, and has probably forgiven Mr. Polanski, though she might not use that word. Forgiveness is not for the perpetrator of the crime, you see. Forgiveness is for the person who has been wronged. God commands us to forgive, not because it would be nice to let the criminal go free, but because it keeps us from becoming bitter and it allows us to live life free of anger and hatred.

Perhaps now he is even a decent man,
and regrets his horrible deed. But the
fact is that he did do that horrible
deed, and he must be punished for it.

All of that being said, Mr. Polanski still owes the people of California a debt. It is not the victim, then 13, who decides whether or not to prosecute in cases like this. It is THE PEOPLE vs. Roman Polanski. So no matter what the victim has to say, The People still have business to attend to.

Roman Polanski plead guilty to statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, and when he suspected that the judge was going to deliver a larger than hoped for sentence, he skipped the country. Understandable, I suppose, because he was scared. He's been living in France and according to some accounts the US has attempted to have him arrested in some other circumstances, and never quite pulled it off.

Now, Switzerland has arrested him and it remains to be seen if we can get him back to Los Angeles to face sentencing. Whether we can or not, and whether the victim has forgiven him or not, we The People must not let time and distance keep us from finishing the job of punishing a child rapist.

To be clear, I consider Roman Polanski to be a brilliant filmmaker. It is certainly possible that he has changed his ways. Perhaps now he is even a decent man, and regrets his horrible deed. But the fact is that he did do that horrible deed, and he must be punished for it. So far, he has evaded that punishment.

There are many people who have died since the story broke. Their outrage can no longer ring out. Then there are many people, much younger than the crime, who wonder what the big deal is. So much time has gone by, they might say. With the molestations of many children at the hands of so many pedophiles today -- and we read the stories all too often -- why so much time and energy focused on one man who has been out of the United States for so long?

Because this is a crime against The People. The People made a deal, and the criminal plead guilty all those years ago.

It is time, Mr. Polanski, to do your time.

• Times Online UK: Should Roman Polanski have to pay for crimes he committed 30 years ago?

• SINCE WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE RNC TO DO IT

• Jimmy Z 'Demand ACORN Investigation' video on YouTube

Pass it around!

• TIME FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO MAKE NOISE

HARRY REID HAS BLOCKED AN INVESTIGATION OF ACORN
Republicans need to find their voice
It is well past time to piss off the Democrats
Take action - and pass this around

Today, at the top of the Big Government website, there is this fabulous story about Harry Reid blocking an investigation of ACORN. Even Barack Obama, in his interview with George Stephanopolis last week, said that it seemed more than obvious that an investigation was called for.

Not Harry Reid. Nope, Reid has said that this investigation might distract lawmakers from addressing more important matters, including health care and economic recovery.

If our lawmakers are so unable to do more than one or two things at a time, why are we paying them so much? Obviously Harry Reid is using this lame excuse because the last thing Harry Reid wants is to allow anyone to investigate ACORN.

Fortunately, it may be too late to save ACORN.

But the point is too important to allow Mr. Reid to stop a real Senate investigation. Harry Reid is the worst kind of politician: Filthy and unapologetic about it. Reid has a long record of doing the wrong thing, saying the wrong things, and just being just plain wrong. It is time for the Republicans to stand up and do something.

It's time to make Harry angry.

I swear I do not know why Republicans in congress are so afraid to get Democrats mad. I say, make them as angry as you can make them. People make mistakes when they get angry. Let Harry Reid know that this is not going to be a cold story on the internet. Make Harry know that this is going to cause him trouble.

I say, the RNC should put together a simple 30 second television ad. You can put it on YouTube of course, but that's not enough. Spend some money and put it on TV. Show some images to back up the announcer's voice (me? I'm available). When the commercial starts, dub in some ominous music as the announcer says:

"ACORN employees were caught on video tape helping and advising an undercover pimp and prostitute cheat on their taxes, start up a brothel, and bring in 13 underage girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes in the US. The American people want an investigation. Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate majority leader, is blocking that investigation. We urge you to call or write your Senator today and tell them you want ACORN to be investigated."

Sure, this would infuriate the Democrats in Washington.

I can't think of anything they deserve more.

• RACISM, JIMMY CARTER & DEMOCRATIC ACCUSATIONS

GUEST WRITER AT THE JIMMY Z SHOW BLOG
Jimmy Carter played the race card enthusiastically
Obama & Democrats did not tell Jimmy to shut up
The same game plan as ever on another day

The remark made by former President Jimmy Carter, stating that Obama is disliked because he is a black man, may very well have been made on his own, but the White House and the leftist are making hay of his comment.

There can be no doubt that the swelling numbers of people objecting to Obama and his policies are doing so on the basis of their opinions that the policies take the country in the wrong direction, are too expensive, poorly drafted and move us toward a socialistic form of government. In other words, the objections are based on real issues, clearly articulated, not race based.

Now, along comes Carter -- no matter his intent or agenda -- and he plays the race card which he grabbed like a star half back taking the football hand-off and running with it toward the goal line, gathering speed and eager fans are heard shouting: Racist, racist racist!

Like a master chess move, the White House and Pelosi & Reid and their entourage seized the opportunity to defend their positions -- not with well thought out arguments to support their agenda (which they have seemed unable and unwilling to do anyway) -- with the claim that objectors are motivated by race and then move the debate from facts and issues to one of defending the accusations of being racist.

Carter's comment is just plain stupid, but he may have unwittingly given the administration the only effective strategy available to them to deflect the rising tide of the awakened sleeping giant, the formerly silent majority.

I didn't like Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy for a long list of reasons, but according to Carter it must have been because they are white.

Whatever your personal opinions, keep your Representatives and Senators advised, and if you aren't happy with their performance, vote 'em out of office. --B.B. Yarborough

• ALREADY THE GOOD OLD DAYS

• DEMOCRATS = HYPOCRISY

THE LAW IS THE DEMOCRATS' PLAY TOY TO FIDDLE WITH
Change It, Change It Back & Change it again
Liberals embrace dishonesty & hypocrisy
as a matter of course
This is just the latest example

Liberals are consistent, you have to give them that. When John Kerry appeared to have a shot at being elected President in 2004, one thing liberals could not have happen was to allow Mitt Romney, then Governor of Massachusetts, to appoint Kerry's successor to the Senate.

Never mind that this was his RIGHT and DUTY under Massachusetts law. Never mind that Democrats (in office and in the mass left wing media) have recently argued that Governor Deval Patrick should not be DENIED his right and duty to appoint a Senator to replace the recently expired Ted Kennedy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

In 2004, Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature, encouraged by the State's Senior Senator Ted Kennedy, changed the law in the state and took from Governor Romney his right and duty to appoint a Senator to replace John Kerry. Democrats of course feared Governor Romney being able to change the course of politics in Massachusetts by picking a Republican.

The law was changed, and instead of having the Governor of the state appoint a Senator to complete the Senator's term, Massachusetts now has a special election 4 to 5 months after (in that case) Senator Kerry was elected President. So, as long as Massachusetts was avoiding a Republican appointee, it was perfectly fine to go months without one of its two Senators.

It is my belief that Mr. Obama
prompted that letter to the
Massachusetts Legislature

Kerry of course went on to lose the election, but the law was changed and should Mr. Kerry have won, Mr. Romney would have been denied his appointment. The pawns in this scheme were, indeed, the citizens of Massachusetts.

By now most of you know that shortly before Senator Kennedy assumed room temperature, he wrote a letter urging Massachusetts lawmakers to give Governor Patrick the right and duty that Mr. Romney would have been denied. Kennedy knew that his time was short, and Kennedy was focused for many years on passing a federal take over of the health care industry.

One thing President Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy wanted to prevent was having the Senate vote on ObamaCare™ without that Senate seat being filled. They could not wait until four or five months down the line to have a new Senator elected.

It is my belief that Mr. Obama prompted that letter to the Massachusetts Legislature. Having this liberal hero, the Lion of the Senate or whatever he was called, write a letter from his death bed was a much more appealing option than having Mr. Obama follow Mr. Kennedy's demise with a plea from the White House to have the law changed to benefit . . . Mr. Obama's health care bill.

Not that Mr. Kennedy would have had any problem with changing the law. Liberals are fine with anything that gets the job done. They don't mind appearing to be self serving or hypocritical. That's how it works -- make the law whatever they need at any particular moment.

So of course the Democrats in Massachusetts are enthusiastic about changing the law to again to allow Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a new Senator to take Kennedy's place, but be clear: This is, more than anything else, an act to ensure that Kennedy's vote for health care reform can still be counted on.

There will still be a special election in January, and if Mr. Romney runs he still has a chance of winning, especially if Governor Patrick appoints he who is said to be the first choice: Michael Dukakis (Ok, I can hear you snickering).

I believe that, if Dukakis is the choice, it makes even more clear the intent -- to simply make certain they still have the vote for health care. I do not think that the the Governor wants to take any chances, appointing someone that might piss of the left or the right. There are few politicians more milquetoast and less exciting than Michael Dukakis. I doubt you would see him run for re-election in a few months, but who knows.

Democrats practice the art of hypocrisy as if it were a good and decent value. Democrats exploit the people as often as they need to. If they don't want a Republican Governor to do what his job allows him to do, they change the law. Then, when the recently changed law is now inconvenient, they change the law again. Is there any doubt that if another Republican were elected Governor and given an opportunity to appoint a Senator they would change the law again?

When Mr. Romney was the Governor, it was perfectly alright for Massachusetts to end up with only one Senator for a number of months. Now that Mr. Patrick is Governor, it is deemed entirely unacceptable! This, my friends, is classic hypocrisy being exhibited by the party who does it better than anyone -- The Democrats.

• ARE WE REALLY GOING TO DISCUSS THIS?

NEWSWEEK'S FULL COURT PRESS FOR OBAMACARE
We've gone too far
How did you and I let this happen in the USA?
On the brink of losing the greatest country in the world

I can't believe we're having this conversation.

It's not like, as Evan Thomas wrote in the frightening Newsweek article, we're afraid to talk about death, because this conversation is not about life and death. It's about euthanasia. They're talking openly now -- these left wing ideologues -- about ending lives of the elderly for the benefit of those who are younger.

Now I don't think for one minute that Evan Thomas is going to be depending on the Federal Government for his family's health care needs. The wealthy liberals you see on TV, telling us how great Obama's plans for health care are, won't need Obama's health care.

There will always be doctors available, for a price, who will treat the wealthy outside of Obama's health care plan. If you think Steven Speilberg is going to be waiting in the same lines that the working stiffs are waiting in, you've lost your mind.

No, he and Evan Thomas and Barack Obama are talking TO us, not with us. They're saying 'hey, this is good for you, and your family. Our families? No, no thank you. We've got another thing going.'

So now in America we're having the discussion. Maybe Evan Thomas is right, you know? I mean, he did say that Obama is "sort of above the world, he's sort of God!" So perhaps Obama does have our best interests at heart, and maybe Evan Thomas is right when he argues that Americans should loosen up and get ready to let our elderly folks just -- you know -- die.

Cut off the water, cut off the food, remind them that their deaths are for the good of the many.

I can't believe we're having this discussion.

The American Thinker writes, "Newsweek seeks to make us more comfortable with the idea of killing our parents and grandparents." And this isn't shocking the living hell out of you? Have we become so jaded now in these United States that we can have a major news magazine propose the idea -- wait, defend the idea that we should off our elders so we have more money for ourselves?

I can't believe we're talking about this!

Rush Limbaugh closed a very sobering talk yesterday on his show: "Scary, sick, insidious stuff. As I say, this is not only about changing the way we think, this is about changing our culture, changing the way we've been brought up."

Yes, we are at that point. We have come this far. Our children are not shocked. Many of them probably think, yes, that's right. We're going to need government money for ourselves. We'll have to let the elderly die sooner.

Selfishness was supposedly a conservative thing, remember?

It wasn't a few weeks ago that liberals went absolutely bonkers as Sarah Palin called the democrats' health care plan 'downright evil,' and put into words what many were thinking. Death Panels, she said, were in this plan. A death panel would end up deciding it was time for you to die. No more care for you, nope. It is costing the government too much money.

Palin was pilloried for having said something so 'stupid!' She lied! There's no 'death panel' in the bill! Of course they were saying that the words death panel were not there, but they knew the concept was indeed there.

Mr. Obama and the White House said that the death panel section would be removed. Democrats in congress freaked out -- they wanted those death panels! And now, again within just a few weeks, Evan Thomas in a cover story for Newsweek, defends the death panels.

Sarah Palin was right after all, all along.

I can't believe we are talking about this.

• BLOG LAUNCH

LET'S GIVE THIS A TRY
Despite a lack of time, The Jimmy Z Show launches a written companion blog
An experiment in futility? Time will tell
Here is an introduction to the writing of Jimmy Z

It was suggested -- No, I don't know who it was anymore -- that I write occasionally. I thought I should try it again, because at the beginning of all that is now The Jimmy Z Show, I was writing, and I enjoyed it very much.

SonlitKnight and I began the insanely successful 'A Newt One' website and blog three plus years ago, and in a very short time, before retiring the site late last year, we'd accomplished a feat unheard of. We reached a Google Page Ranking of 6. For those who know, that's an amazing thing for a couple of ding dong conservative lunatic fringe kooks.

Friends came and went -- We'd entertained Snooper and Loki for a time, and Matt Buff became a close ally and then moved on -- and though some of those folks who had been intimate allies in the battle against leftist crappola have moved on and severed ties, SonlitKnight remains my good friend and -- happily -- my compatriot in fighting against the tyranny of the left in this nation.

What I have always set out to do, from the first time I put my fingers to the keyboard of a computer that was new and foreign and intimidating, was to point people to the truth. Within hours of powering up that first computer with a 15" CRT monitor, I 'walked' into a chat website called WBS and found two groups of people: Conservatives who were good and decent and loved this country, and liberals who hated us and the country we loved.

That remains exactly the same today. Bush I was president, then Clinton, then Bush II and now the President is Barack Obama. Still, there are quite simply two kinds of people in this country of ours: Conservatives who are good and decent and love this country, and liberals who hate us and the country we love.

Once you know that, you know what you have to do. It only took a couple of minutes before I was berating the liberals in that chat room and aligning with like-minded true Reagan Republicans. Sure, there were those who played 'middle of the road' and tried to espouse a moderate, centrist viewpoint, but those folks then are as useless to me as McCain turned out to be last year.

The moderates are no help in this battle.

You and I must celebrate partisanship. We must take a stand and be willing to lose friends over it. We cannot save this nation by pussyfooting around the issues. When someone says in public what a great thing ObamaCare would be, we have got to be willing to speak up. We have the truth, so we must announce it.

Like Christians who must defend their faith against the lies of a false religion, so we Conservatives must defend our country against the lies of a false political philosophy. Liberalism is lie. The things that liberals espouse do not make life better for the citizens of this great country. Liberals only seek to gain more power over the citizens. That is their only goal. The entire agenda, every part of it, seeks to gain more and more power over the people.

So, for what it's worth, and assuming you don't get enough of it on my radio program, here is a place where you can get more opinion from me in written form. You comments are welcome, and I am Jimmy Z.