americanideal.org Blog

Legal Scholar Whoopi Goldberg

September 15, 2008 on 11:57 am | In Intellectual Giants of the Left, Obama vs. McCain | 1 Comment

Add Whoopi Goldberg to the pantheon of intellectual giants that speak for the liberal-celebrity-Democrat culture.  You may recall that theologian Nancy Pelosi, Doctor of Divinity, has recently discovered something unknown to Cathoic Popes and theologians for two thousand years, as if it was buried in her backyard when she was excavating for a new pool, namely that the Catholic Church, in fact, is not sure when a human life acquires a right to live. 

Now we have Ms. Whoopi Goldberg, Juris Doctor.  By the way, is she on Obama’s short list for his first Supreme Court vacancy?  After all, she’s eminently qualified.  She’s a real woman (unlike Sarah Palin), because she’s a radical feminist; and she’s really black (unlike Clarence Thomas), because she’s a radical leftist. Therefore, she’s got two interest group identities nailed.  Now we find that she is a stunningly original legal mind!  If only she were a lesbian too. . . Ah, but with Hollywood, you never know.  She could one day fall under the spell of that seductress (I mean seducer (?) sorry for the sexist suffix) Ellen Degeneres.  Then we would have a feminist black woman involved in an interracial lesbian affair.  That’s a grand slam on any lefty’s scorecard.  She would sail through the Senate with unanimous Democrat support, and the Republicans would politely nod and add fawining praise (“Hey, she was hilariouis in Sister Act, and wasn’t she one of those hyenas in the Lion King? Very funny stuff”).

Whoopi’s crack a the law came on recent appearance of John McCain on The View  (I liked politics better when its practicioners thought it was beneath their dignity to do these pop-TV interviews as just one of the guys with Jay, Dave, or now these four harpies on the View–or Oprah God help us).

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: There has also been a question burning amongst voters and actually our viewers, and that is the question of Roe v. Wade. And as president, if you were, no softballs coming from me, even though you have my vote. Would you as president work to overturn that? And then would Sarah Palin be working to overturn Roe v. Wade?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that’s not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation.

BARBARA WALTERS: That’s kind of the other way of saying people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

McCAIN: That, that, well, that is saying that, I believe Roe v. Wade was a very bad decision, Barbara. [audience groans] I think it was a bad decision. I thought other, I thought other decisions of the United States Supreme Court were bad decisions. But I want people on the Court who, quote, “do interpret” and not just on the issue of Roe v. Wade, but on other issues.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?

McCAIN: My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.

HASSELBECK: So it was in how the law came up, it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart was the issue. You, you want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench.

McCAIN: And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the states would make these decisions.

GOLDBERG: Sir.

McCAIN: Yes?

GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-

McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-

GOLDBERG: Does that-

McCAIN: -for them to do.

GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.

McCAIN: I, I understand your point.

GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.

McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That’s an excellent point.

GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.

McCAIN: And I thank you.

WALTERS: Before we go, before we go, just to give a different picture because you talk- [laughter]

GOLDBERG: I got scared.

JOY BEHAR: She’s picturing herself on the plantation.

GOLDBERG: I got scared. I gotta start running.

WALTERS: You and Sherri, we’ll take care of you. Us white folk will take care of you.

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Oh my God.

“Oh my God” is right.  Hey Whoopi, any supreme court justice who would apply the Constitution as written could not allow you or any person (black or white) to become enslaved (although in your case it might be tempting . . .). 

The Constitution has these legally binding principles embodied not just in the original clauses and articles, but in those pesky amendments that have been added over two centuries time since.  These amendments are part of the Constitution and have absolute legal force, and they were added through the process spelled out in same, not by the reckless whim of five or more black-robed dictators.  Guess what, Whoopi!  The 13th amendment to the US Constitution specifically forbids the practice of slavery or involuntary servitude in the United States; and the 14th and 15th amendments further articulate this nation’s commitment to equality of the races under the law.  They all came during a national time of healing knows as reconstruction, after a terrible national blood-letting known as the Civil War.  Ever hear of any of that?

How I wish McCain, instead of the obligatory and insincere show of “understanding” toward Ms. Goldberg’s alleged fear, had told her what an idiot she is and had given her a lecture on the Constitution that every American 8th grader should know.  It shows us just how unhealthy race relations are in this country, in the way the Obama campaign also shows it.  In a “post-race” world, one could say honestly to Whoopi something like the following:  “You, Whoopi, may be an amusing comic actress, but when it comes to politics you are in idiot.  And you are an idiot, neither because of nor despite the fact that you are black and a woman, but because you are stupid.”   That’s a healthy dialogue I long to hear.

No, Whoopi, you needn’t fear being shackled and forced to pick cotton.  Heck, that doggone Constitution even prevents you from being silenced for being wrong and being a moron (did I mention, however, that the prospect makes my mouth water . . . ) 

Nancy Pelosi, scholar of Catholc theology and doctrine

August 25, 2008 on 12:20 pm | In Catholic Church and American Policy, Conservative vs. Liberal, Intellectual Giants of the Left, Obama vs. McCain | No Comments

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. Tom Brokaw asked her about Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum where Senator Obama was asked:

PASTOR RICK WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is, is above my pay grade.

Pelosi:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

Nancy Pelosi is frighteningly air-headed if she thinks the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is at all ambiguous.   Would Tim Russert have hit back a little harder on this? I would like to thnk so.

She has to twist herself into a pretzel to defend Obama’s position in favor of virtual infanticide, and to defend the Veep on the ticket, Biden, whom the media have told us ad nauseam in recent days is a “Catholic.”  Another pro-abortion, liberal Catholic.