Whoopi experiencing vaginal delusions

Whoopi Goldberg is having vaginal hallucinations now that the Supreme Court will likely go conservative if POTUS can get a judge confirmed. The fate of carte blanche abortion is on every liberal's emotional mind and it seems as if the left is competing for a non compos mentis  award for who can look the craziest.

The brain-trusts of "The View" are in hot competition for the award as Whoopi  tells President Trump's future Supreme Court Justice pick to "get out of my vagina."

Abortion and Whoopi Goldberg's vagina are a non sequitur. But much of what this shrew says is also divorced from facts, like her long-winded tirade about how Republicans "don't care" about women's rights and will take them away:

"I don't like hearing, again, that I'm trying to take your rights away. I have to tell you, as a woman, I think you're trying to take my rights away. Okay? You don't care.

"And as a person, who believes in the Constitution which tells me that I have the right to be myself and do the things I want to do, and I don't have to listen to what your religion is, and I don't have to listen to what you want it to be I have to make sure that as an American citizen, I'm doing the right stuff and taking care of business.

I don't like this line that I, as a Democrat, or an independent or whatever is trying to take away anything from you. I'm trying to hold onto my personal rights so that you can have the rights you want. See? Because if you take mine, I feel like you're the one with the problem. If you take my right away from me, to judge what I do for my family and my body, I got a little problem with that. You got a problem. You don't want people to take your guns?Get out of my behind! Get out of my vagina! Get out!" 

Meghan McCain, the outnumbered Republican in the group, countered Goldberg's crazy rant saying the Constitution guarantees people their rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and thus includes those rights to the unborn children Whoopi would have killed as if it was her right to do so.

Whoopi Goldberg doesn't understand the Constitution and actually believes it guarantees her the right to have an abortion, even though it's really referring to natural rights we are born with and which the government cannot infringe.

Liberals tend to believe the government is the agency that gives us our rights. The Constitution is clear about this and says that our rights are given to us by God and the government cannot infringe on them. To conservatives, these rights extend to babies in the womb whose only voice is that of us who would spare their lives.

And I cannot imagine any Supreme Court justice who would want to be in Whoopi Goldberg's vagina, much less her behind. I tell you, she's delusional.


Tweet

CNN's Toobin wants Roe v. Wade to remain intact: he allegedly gave his mistress money for an abortion

"Elections have consequences" --Barack Hussein Obama

The Compromised News Network's (CNN) legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is freaking out since Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his impending retirement. Toobin, a big fan of killing babies in the womb, is particularly panicked over the fate of the Roe v. Wade situation.

As soon as Toobin heard the good news about Kennedy, he nearly wet himself in panic and began sounding the alarm saying that "abortion rights" as we know it are effectively "doomed" in our country.

The leftist lawyer stressed on CNN that Roe v. Wade will be on its deathbed if Trump gets his SCOTUS nomination confirmed.

"You are going to see 20 states pass laws banning abortion outright. Just banning abortion," the shaking Toobin whined. "Because they know that there are now going to be five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade."

So at worst, if this does come to pass in the future, women who want to kill their unborn babies will have to travel to a state, like California or New York, that allows for abortions. This might actually give those women time to think over what they're about to do and change their minds, to the benefit of the babies.

"Roe v. Wade is doomed. It is gone because Donald Trump won the election and because he's going to have the chance to appoint two Supreme Court justices," Toobin added.

The New York Daily News reported that Toobin has very personal reasons for being pro-abortion. He is alleged to have offered his paramour, Casey Greenfield, money to have her unborn baby murdered.

Sorry, but that's what abortion factually is, and if enough people start calling it out for what it is, perhaps one potential mother will become one actual mother.

"Greenfield, now 36, was in her 20s when she fell for Toobin, now 49, even though he was wed to Amy McIntosh, the Harvard sweetheart he'd married in 1986 and who gave him two children," the New York Daily News reported in 2010.

"In 2008 when Greenfield became pregnant, and when she told Toobin the news, he offered her 'money' if she'd have an abortion,' says a source. He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor."

What a wonderful guy.

Casey Greenfield turned out to be a much better person than Toobin and had the child, a son. A paternity test confirmed Toobin, a full-blown scumquat, was indeed the biological father.

The NY Daily News added that "When Casey wouldn't have an abortion, Jeff told her she was going to regret it, that she shouldn't expect any help from him," according to their source.

Eventually, Toobin agreed to some form of child support because he's such a magnanimous piece of work, and allowed the child to visit him and his family on weekends, according to an article in The New York Times.

Aren't you glad you aren't Jeffrey Toobin?



Tweet

BREAKING: SCOTUS rules in favor of Christian baker

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

In a 7 - 2 decision, SCOTUS set aside a previous Colorado court ruling against the baker, but did not decide the broader issue as to whether a business can refuse to serve gays and lesbians. Nor does it deal with whether a transgender man who marries a transgender woman can be refused service.

The opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in tight cases. [Kennedy tends to swing both ways judicially.]

The narrow ruling focused only on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against the baker.

"The Commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote.

The two justices who dissented were Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayer, both who have souls as black as the nether regions of George Soros.

The court said the broader issue "must await further elaboration."

"The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach," Kennedy wrote.

It all began in July 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins of Denver visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a custom-made wedding cake for their homosexual wedding. Phillips, a religious Christian, refused their service, not because they were gay, (he never refused to serve gays or lesbians in the past) but because his religion does not condone same-sex marriage.

The state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after the gay men, rather than going elsewhere for their cake, filed a formal complaint.

Mullins described their case as symbolizing "the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business . . . about basic access to public life."

The case also symbolized the 'rights of gay people override the rights of religious beliefs.' And that the LGBTQ community can force someone to provide a service that goes against their moral beliefs.

The Trump administration supported Phillips, who was represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization. But Phillips lost all his legal appeals, bringing the case to the Supreme Court's decision Monday.

In all the time this has been going on, Phillips lost his business and had to let employees go.

Phillips was clear as to why he refused to bake the cake: "It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event--a religious sacred event--that conflicts with my conscience," he said last year.

The court specifically examined whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law which compelled the baker to crate commercial "expression" violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs regarding marriage.

Upon hearing the arguments in December, Justice Kennedy was bothered by certain comments by a commission member. Kennedy said that the commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."

Probably due to the fact that the court's decision today was so narrow, liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined with the conservative justices while Sotomayor and Ginsberg refused.


Tweet