Sunday, February 04, 2007


Whoopi Goldberg discussed Iraq on the O’Reilly Factor last week:

“We went in under misguided ideals and with no real way to get out. Nobody knows how to get out of this because it’s a mess. Everyone who said ‘let’s go in and do this’ helped create this instability in the Middle East.”

She said she based her opinion on feelings. When pressed about the relevance of feelings, she defended her feelings by explaining her feelings about the relevance of feelings.

On Star Trek, Whoopi portrayed the mysteriously all-knowing Guinan, who dispensed feelings and opinions with exotic drinks in a spaceship bar. In the series, she never had to explain herself because, like all fantasies, such characters don’t need to.

The reason police officers and scientists are required to explain their investigations is that reports limited by hunches and emotion quickly spell the end of one’s credibility – and rightly so. If, during a burglary trial for example, I testify to Whoopi and other jurors that I had a feeling that the guy I arrested was a burglar, she’d correctly find him not guilty. It’s not enough for me to say, “You can believe me, I’m a police officer.” Unless I back my hunches with coherent facts, my opinion is worthless. No self-respecting scientist or investigator relies on feelings without attacking their science. No actor relies on fact without attacking THE LEFT.

Almost by definition, actors spend their careers pretending to be real people. Some of these people presume to have something important to say when they aren’t reciting someone else’s words.

What seems to make actors and the media relevant today is the emotional consensus they generate. No one cares what Caryn Elaine Johnson has to say; but because Caryn changed her name and found success as Whoopi, a certain percentage of our population willingly confuses her talents with intellect. And in a political party built of facades, talented actors looking for face time will always have a place to blather – as long as they don’t offend lefties who provide the face time.

Whether one person or a billion agree with emotionally-based hunches and feelings, consensus does not make an unsupported opinion a fact. And because millions of Americans don’t know how, or are too lazy, to compile or investigate facts, they often side with consensus so that other people will like them. Whoopi might be wrong, but Tim and Susan Sarandon (and their moonbat fans) will love her for not embarrassing them with contradictions.

As for consensus-based fact, when black defendants were accused of breaking Jim Crow laws, they were often convicted by democrats who were too afraid of being labeled a “n—-r lover” by their restless neighbors if they said something like, Stop – let’s look at the evidence. Can we really trust the word of the white accuser? That kind of reckless defiance would have invited the same contempt that conservatives see today from liberals. Back then, democrats retaliated against such people with lynching, arson, and assault. Today they key cars, vandalize homes, and throw Oreo cookies. (If you don’t believe me, paste a few Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on your car and park it at Pavilions in West Hollywood). Whoopi doesn’t want to attract that kind of hatred, so she parrots the liberal dogma.

Most successful politicians and actors are entrepreneurial narcissists. They manufacture and sell popularity. There’s little difference between Republican and Democrat politicians. But it’s their base, not personal appeal, that makes the difference.

Republicans believe in a baby’s right to life, the US Constitution, and America as a global ideal for all of humanity. Democrats believe in killing babies under the pretext of women’s rights, running from global responsibility under the pretext of peace, and socialism under the pretext of caring for everyone.

The key to these bases is education, which leads to personal success.

Republicans rely on a strong, happy, and healthy middle class, while Democrats depend upon large populations of impoverished voters (who they control with handouts) and a liberal elite class of lawyers and academics who want to control them.

Real Republicans (e.g., not Schwarzenegger) won’t tax the middle class into poverty, while Democrats pursue ways to transfer wealth from the middle class to make more impoverished voters.

As for Whoopi’s geopolitical sensibilities, her opinions defy gravity. O’Reilly didn’t interview Whoopi because of her understanding of global events, but because she clearly articulates Hollywood’s political incoherence. Whoopi offers a glimpse into the godless intellectual vacuum of the American left – far from the noise, vandalism, and epithets that her peers rely on. And while that might not be a lot, it’s more than the rest have offered.


Many social conservatives are rightly concerned about Rudy Giuliani’s social positions, specifically on what type of judges he’d nominate. Today, we got that answer from Giuliani’s e-campaign. They sent out a transcript of Mayor Giuliani’s statements at South Carolina’s GOP executive committee meeting. Here’s what Mayor Giuliani said:

On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued cases in the Supreme Court. I’ve argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that’s part of our freedom and when that’s taken away from you that’s terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that…I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he’s young and he can have a long career and that’s probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint: Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.

I suspect that social conservatives will still be wary of Giuliani’s position on social issues but I’m equally certain that many social conservatives will appreciate his willingness to nominate strict constructionists if he’s nominated and elected. I’m happy that Mayor Giuliani favors strict constructionists. It’s also news to me that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito were former colleagues of his.

The more I learn about Mayor Giuliani, the more I like him. That’s why I signed onto his exploratory committee.

Specifically, I like Rudy’s stance on defeating the terrorists. I liked his willingness to crack down on supposedly minor crimes in his first year as New York’s mayor. The dramatic decline in crime rates in NYC are directly attributable to his no nonsense approach to fighting crime. I like his being a former federal prosecutor and a very good one at that. He’s undoubtedly a leader with a history of rising to the occasion.

Keep in mind that I’m not a squishy moderate. I’d describe myself as a Ronald Reagan Republican. I’m definitely a social conservative. Do I disagree with Mayor Giuliani on some issues? Definitely. Still, I find far more things that I like about Mayor Giuliani than I don’t like.

Getting judges right is something that conservatives have cared about since Reagan’s time in office. Rudy gets them right. That should count for alot with conservatives.