Toys_R_Us Linked to "Not Rape-Rape" Whoopi Goldberg
I didn't know the potato heads at Toys R Us were featuring Whoopi
Goldberg on the cover of their 2009 "Differently-Abled Kids" catalog
and ad campaign until she defended pedophile rapist/sodomist Roman
Polanski on "The View" last week, after which bloggers quickly took
note of the paradox.
I could have told Toys R Us Goldberg was a poor fit, certainly
not the "child advocate" it boasted her to be in a press release. She's
had multiple abortions – between four and seven, depending on the
account. Serial-killing one's own children is about as child-unfriendly
as one can be.
In early stand-up routines and in the book "The Choices We
Made: 25 Women and Men Speak Out About Abortion," Goldberg stated her
first abortion was self-inflicted in a park at age 14, after being
impregnated at 13.
That one happened because, "Whoopi led a bohemian lifestyle …
and engaged in promiscuous activities," according to biographer Ellesse
Chow.
Which brings us to Polanski. Most now know that in 1977 the
famous film director at age 43 primed a 13-year-old with drugs and
alcohol before raping and sodomizing her, after which he fled the
country to escape prosecution.
Now 76, Polanski was apprehended in Copenhagen almost two weeks
ago and faces extradition to the U.S., to the consternation of certain
Hollywood liberals, including Goldberg.
On Sept. 28 Goldberg jaw-droppingly defended Polanski on "The
View" stating, "What I'm saying is he did not rape her, because she was
aware and the family apparently was aware. ... I know it wasn't
rape-rape. ... It was something else but I don't believe it was
rape-rape."
There is no explanation for those shocking statements except to
recall Goldberg herself had consensual sex at age 13, which apparently
was only the beginning. She bragged on "The View" in 2008 she had gone
on to nail "about 50" lovers in her lifetime.
So Goldberg is messed up, dangerously projecting her own sordid past on others.
Goldberg wasn't finished. When co-host Sherri Shepherd attempted
to argue against the insanity – "OK, so we go back with what he said he
did. He gave her Quaaludes, he gave her champagne. She was drugged. She
was 13 years old." – Goldberg responded, "They had sex beforehand,
Sherri."
What does that mean? Adult sex with a young teen is OK if no drugs or alcohol is involved?
Goldberg continued, "You know, I have to tell you … we're a
different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees
13-year-olds and 14-year-olds in the rest of Europe ... I do know not
everybody agrees with the way we see things. Now, would I want my
14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no. ..."
"Not necessarily" would Goldberg want her 14-year-old having
sex with somebody? Not necessarily? So … maybe? And, at any rate,
pedophilia is a morally relativistic topic?
Goldberg tried to back away from her outrageous statements a few days later on "The View":
[S]ome people got the idea that I was condoning what he
did. … I was trying to make sure that we had our facts straight …
particularly about what he was arrested for and what he was charged
with. …
All of these charges were dismissed except for the one he pled
guilty to. It's the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor, not rape, which was my point. So just to make
sure that everybody understands … and that's what I was trying to do
the other day.
No, that's not what Goldberg was trying to do the other day. She was
trying to excuse Polanski's behavior. She was trying to say consensual
sex between 13-year-olds and older adult men is OK.
Not that this was the first time Goldberg gave a glimpse into
the dark recesses of her mind. In 2007 Goldberg snapped at conservative
co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck to revere abortion. "It is the hardest
decision that a woman ever … has to make. So, when you talk about it, a
little bit of reverence to the women out there who have had to make
this horrible decision."
We're to revere a "horrible decision"?
Then why in 2008, again on "The View," did Goldberg say, after
John McCain maintained Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, "Do I have to
worry about becoming a slave again?" So at that moment abortion
represented freedom from shackles?
Again, Goldberg is messed up.
I don't know what the people at Toys R Us were thinking when
choosing Goldberg to showcase their program for "differently-abled
kids." I walked into a Toys R U s store the other day to be greeted by
a large photo of Goldberg hugging a child with Down syndrome and was repulsed. I'm
sure Goldberg would have been OK with aborting that beautiful little
girl.
I spoke with a public relations representative at Toys R Us,
who said the catalog was already out and Goldberg is definitely not a
spokesperson for the company, just a smiling photo.
Was Toys R Us fine, I asked, being branded with someone who advocates aborting its future customers? And raping them?
No, she assured me.
But it's too late. I won't be shopping at Toys R Us this holiday season for my four grandsons.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Saying it wasn't "'rape' rape" was ignorant and repugnant. I was stunned that a well known feminist such as herself would say such a thing. What a moron.
I know you can't re-try someone for the same offense. You know, double jeopardy. What about in this case? Since he worked out a plea deal to drop charges on other things if he pled guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor" can they still go back and charge him with full rape as they should have originally? Also, what's the jail term for blowing bail and being a fugitive for 30 years?
As for Whoopi and the rest of the scum that are jumping on the free Polanski bandwagon they are horrible people for defending a monster like him and they should be ashamed of themselves for even mentioning it. BTW, is anyone at all surprised that Woody Allen came to his defense?
As for the judgmental SOB who wrote this article. Get off your high horse. Judging us is gods job, not yours. If Whoopi had 50 consensual partners, good for her, and them. It's none of your business. And she absolutely did not say you were supposed to "revere a "horrible decision"". She said revere the women who have to make the decision. I think revere is a bad choice of words but to think women make this decision in some sort of offhand way is typical BS from your type. It's a very difficult decision but sometimes it's absolutely the right decision.
Abortion doesn't represent freedom from shackles but Roe v Wade absolutely does. I know you " pro-life activists" aren't much for reading, or facts, but you should really go back and read the Roe v Wade decision a little closer before you fight to overturn it. The abortion part may, now, be the most controversial part of it but it's only a tiny part of the actual decision.
Roe v Wade wasn't just about abortion. It was about a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body and her own health care . Before Roe v Wade a woman had to get approval from her husband or father to get treatment. If you wanted to get birth control, or get your tubes tied you'd have to get your husbands ok, even if he was an abusive scumbag who drugged and raped you, or 13 year old girls, all the time. If you had breast cancer and had to have a breast removed to save your life, but your husband would rather have a 2 breasted wife for 1 more year instead of a 1 breasted wife for several years, well you've got 1 year to live. I could go on but I hope you get the point.
Think about that next time before you start trying to overturn Roe v Wade. Fight abortion if you feel you must but anyone, especially any woman, who fights Roe v Wade itself is a fool.
I do believe he can still be charged with rape. In any plea agreement the presiding judge has to accept it as well. And of course fleeing is another charge, and I hope they get him for that too.
In the end, as long as he ends up sharing a cell with a 500 pound sex -starved prison rapist, I'll be happy. Anything short of that is pure injustice.
sue. I was 11-14. At first no idea what was going on-this was many many moons ago. Then I learned and learned my family would say it was all my fault. *years later confirmed by therapist and my OWN mother* In my middish 20's this uncle was going to be going after his other brothers daughter so I had to speak up. Was believed then by all (his wife still does and thanks me. Her s-dad did same) So I went to a lawyer who told me that I couldn't sue for civil damages like others because "you would have had to do it in a year after it stopped" I would have been 15 and re-victimized not to mention then and now our state says no legal contracts if you are under 18. How would I have done that? He also said "the fact that you never forgot and lived with it as opposed to 'hidden memories' and lived as a survivor makes you ineligible. Go figure!
And I hate to say but being around that time and people older that poor 13 yr old never had a chance. Teens were not considered children in a lot of places but mini adults and as such....
That said I hope he has to pay all her back therapy etc etc and though money won't change what he done he should give her a hefty check to continue therapy
let's not be so hard on the guy. I would accept something short of that. It could be a 450 lb sex -starved rapist and I'd still be satisfied.
But only if there's two of 'em.
Whoopi is correct. The charge against Roman Polanski was NOT "rape." It should have been, IMO, but it wasn't. Polanski pled guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor."
This is what Whoopi clarified. But you are far too interested in finding a reason to crucify her to care about facts, apparently.
So regardless of what you he pled guilty to, he raped a 13 year-old. Period. End of story. And defending that is despicable. So to Woody Allen, and all those other flaming idiots that signed that petition, you're disgusting excuses for human beings. I hope every single one of you is "not rape-raped" in the very near future.
I agree that the charge should have been rape, and that the plea deal was asinine. I don't agree that Whoopi was defending Polanski. She has explained that she was merely clarifying the nature of the charges, not defending the deplorable act.
Polanski's the criminal here, not Whoopi. Anyone who defends what he did is filthy, too, but I do not believe that is what Whoopi was doing.
May I point out her quote?
It seems significant given your post just now.
"What I'm saying is he did not rape her, because she was aware and the family apparently was aware. ... I know it wasn't rape-rape. ... It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape."
She might have said it better by saying "What I am saying is, he was not convicted of rape," instead of saying, "What I'm saying is he did not rape her,"
And then going on to explain why it was not rape: "because she was aware and the family apparently was aware". We know she was not "aware" because she was drugged with part of a Quaalude and was drinking a little alcohol , then was in a hot tub.
Sorry for butting in! =)
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.