Category Archives: The Left

The End of Roe v. Wade

The recent leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has prompted many commentators to charge that a hyper-politicized, conservative Court is on the verge of losing its legitimacy and plunging America into a constitutional abyss. Should the draft become the Court’s ruling, they argue, it would threaten a wide range of basic rights and perhaps the rule of law itself.

These are dire assessments, reflecting the country’s intense, long-standing divide over the issue of abortion. But they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Consider first the fact of the leak itself in the Mississippi abortion case now under review, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It is a huge leak. Never before has a full draft, footnotes and all, of a would-be majority opinion seeped out to the world while a Supreme Court case of major moment was still under consideration. But based on what we now know, the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft is less troubling than several previous episodes in Court history, in which various justices themselves blabbed either in the moment or soon after a decision. At present, there is no evidence that any justice was directly involved in delivering the draft to Politico.

Nor is there anything unusual in the leaked draft’s treatment of precedent. Supreme Court precedents strictly bind lower courts, but they do not bind the Supreme Court itself. Indeed, an essential function of the Court is to revise incorrect or outdated prior rulings. Over the last century, the Court has overruled itself about twice a year—roughly the same rate at which the Court has overturned acts of Congress.

Sometimes the Court comes to believe that an old case egregiously misinterpreted the Constitution, so the old case must go.

Precedents fall for many reasons. Sometimes the world changes in ways that mock the logic and expectations of the old ruling. Sometimes opposing lines of cases evolve and clash, and something must give. Most fundamentally, sometimes the Court comes to believe that an old case egregiously misinterpreted the Constitution, so the old case must go.


In 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, the justices rightly buried their predecessors’ 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, which had proclaimed the dubious doctrine of “separate but equal.” The best argument for this burial was that the Constitution really does promise racial equality, and racial segregation—American apartheid—was not equal. Likewise, the New Deal Court properly repudiated dozens of earlier Gilded Age cases that read property and contract rights far too broadly and in the process invalidated minimum-wage, maximum-hour, worker-safety and consumer-protection laws of various sorts—laws that are now seen, quite rightly, as perfectly proper.

The liberal Warren Court also overruled a staggering number of precedents, introducing now familiar terms to our constitutional lexicon. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) dramatically expanded the “exclusionary rule,” Reynolds v. Sims (1964) sweepingly mandated “one person, one vote,” and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required the now iconic “Miranda warning.” These cases and dozens like them jettisoned earlier settled precedents that, in the minds of the justices, mangled the Constitution. As law professor Philip Kurland once wryly observed, “the list of opinions destroyed by the Warren Court reads like a table of contents from an old constitutional casebook.”

Today, the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, is similarly ripe for reversal. In the eyes of many constitutional experts across the ideological spectrum, it too lacks solid grounding in the Constitution itself, as Justice Alito demonstrates at length in his leaked Dobbs draft. (Full disclosure: The draft cites me and several others as constitutional scholars who oppose Roe but personally support abortion rights.) Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was sharply critical of the decision.

In Roe, the Court did not even quote the constitutional language it purported to interpret in handing down its ruling—the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. That clause holds that the government may not deprive any person of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law”—that is, without fair legal procedures, such as impartial judges and juries, defense attorneys and the like. The Texas abortion law at issue in Roe in fact provided for fair courtroom procedures, which made the decision’s “due process” argument textual gibberish.

Constitutional history also cut hard against Roe. When Americans adopted the 14th Amendment in the 1860s, almost no one thought it barred laws against abortion. Virtually every state back then prohibited abortions. Roe likewise ran counter to state laws still on the books almost everywhere in the 1970s. The opinion clumsily cited various earlier precedents involving “privacy” rights related to contraception and erotic expression, but in a devastating concession, the Roe Court admitted that the presence of a living fetus in abortion scenarios made the matter “inherently different” from all previous privacy cases. And Roe said nothing, amazingly, about the relationship of abortion rights to women’s equality.

Does Justice Alito’s draft, as many are now claiming, inflict collateral damage on other areas of constitutional case law, such as the Warren Court’s precedents on contraception and interracial marriage?

Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork at his 1987 Senate confirmation hearing.Photo: Charles Tasnadi/Associated Press.

It does not. In fact, the Dobbs draft reinforces these iconic opinions by explaining why they were right—namely, because the freedoms recognized in these cases were “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” These watershed rulings were once controversial in conservative constitutional circles, thanks to the influential work of Robert Bork, but now they are safe.

As a constitutional scholar at Yale and later as an unsuccessful nominee to the Supreme Court, Bork denounced a landmark contraception case, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which the Court declared unconstitutional a Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraception, even inside the marital bedroom. Bork considered the law “nutty” but argued that there was no broad constitutional “right to privacy,” as the Court had declared in its ruling.

But there were other, more conservative grounds for the Griswold decision. In an earlier case involving the same Connecticut law, Poe v. Ullman (1961), Justice John Marshall Harlan explained why the issue was simple for a traditionalist such as himself: “The utter novelty” of the Connecticut law was “conclusive.” No other state had ever “made the use of contraceptives a crime.”

In the 1972 case of Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended Griswold to invalidate a Massachusetts statute that banned the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried individuals. By then, such laws were fast becoming outliers in America, rarely enforced even if on the books. Today, no state or political party is seriously trying to undo this precedent. In his 2006 Senate confirmation hearings, Justice Alito, a traditionalist self-consciously in the Harlan mold, minced no words on the issue: “I do agree with the result in Eisenstadt.” His leaked draft opinion in Dobbs says much the same thing.

Justice Alito has never said anything remotely similar about Roe. For traditionalists, there is an essential difference between the contraception and abortion cases. Whereas the Court in Griswold sided with 49 states against the outlier Connecticut, the Court in Roe invalidated the laws of at least 49—perhaps all 50—states. The Dobbs draft takes pains to cite this stunning fact.

In keeping with a long line of cases and the spirit of the written Constitution, Justice Alito notes that rights which are neither explicit nor implicit in the Constitution’s text and history generally need strong roots in the mores and practices of the American people. One way to measure these mores and practices is to count state laws: How many states recognize a putative right and how many try to abridge it? How often and how strictly are laws on the books in fact enforced?

Consider another landmark Warren Court case that the Dobbs draft cites with implicit approval, Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. The Court’s opinion expressly noted that by 1967—the year the case came down—more than two thirds of the states allowed interracial marriage. Many of the rest allowed interracial couples to marry elsewhere and then return home as lawful spouses. Today, interracial marriage is even more firmly established as a bedrock feature of American life.

Mildred and Richard Loving were the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case in which the Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

The ruling in Roe v. Wade, by contrast, has been under fierce and relentless attack for decades in most states. It has been unremittingly condemned in the quadrennial party platforms of one of America’s two major parties, a party that has won half of the presidential elections since Roe. Roe is also decisively different from various contraception and marriage cases because, as Justice Alito’s draft opinion stresses, abortion uniquely involves destroying unborn human life, typically long after conception and implantation.

Perhaps surprisingly, the draft’s logic also buttresses certain important LGBT rights. As the Court emphasized in its landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, such laws were almost never enforced in America against private consensual conduct, but rather only in cases of rape or public indecency. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion reported that only 13 states at the time still had laws prohibiting consensual adult sodomy and only four states singled out same-sex sodomy. Even in these outlier states, there was “a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to adults acting in private.”

Justice Kennedy’s later landmark opinion for the Court, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which required all states to recognize same-sex marriage, raises rather different issues. The Dobbs draft does not directly challenge Obergefell and purports to limit its own thrust to abortion cases. But the draft’s logic could be seen to undermine the Obergefell decision, which was issued over the dissents of Justices Alito and other conservative justices, who argued that same-sex marriage was not deeply rooted in American tradition.

Every year, same-sex marriage, unlike abortion, becomes more widespread and accepted.

The status of same-sex marriage is obviously changing, however, and such unions are fast becoming a pillar of modern American life. Every year, same-sex marriage, unlike abortion, becomes more widespread and accepted—more deeply rooted and less controversial. And crucially, Obergefell is at heart a gender equality case. Traditional marriage laws discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation—allowing straight people but not gay people to pursue marital happiness. These laws also discriminated on the basis of sex: Patrick was allowed to marry Mary, but Patricia was not.

Tradition and state-counting are sound ways of thinking about unenumerated American liberties, but rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—such as the rights of racial and gender equality—warrant stricter judicial protection, even when such rights contradict dominant customs. The Dobbs draft says little—too little—about sex and gender equality. Advocates for reproductive rights also slighted issues of equality in their oral argument in Dobbs, recapitulating one of the biggest flaws of the Roe opinion itself. Later drafts of Justice Alito’s opinion will likely need to take equality issues more seriously as the dissents of the Court’s liberals begin to circulate, no doubt highlighting and criticizing this major lapse.

In the end, Dobbs will probably be decided by a 6-3 vote, with Justice Alito joined by the four other justices who reportedly endorse his draft (Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett). Chief Justice John Roberts, who reportedly is less keen on the draft, will likely uphold the Mississippi law on the narrow grounds that it gives a wavering pregnant woman enough time—15 weeks—to decide. In recent decades, less than 5% of all abortions have occurred after 15 weeks.

So long as abortion remains legal in many blue states—and nothing in the Dobbs draft dictates otherwise—most women who miss deadlines in their red home states should be able to travel to get the treatment they desire. Indigent women will doubtless experience special burdens, which makes it imperative for charities to ramp up assistance for women in distress.

A very different issue, however, would arise were Republicans to sweep national elections in 2024 and then pass a national abortion ban. This is the scenario that should set off the loudest alarm bells for Americans who support abortion rights.

Demonstrators hold up pictures of the justices at a rally for abortion rights outside the Supreme Court, December 2021.Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

As for concerns about judicial partisanship more generally, we must remember that in recent years conservative justices have repeatedly crossed the aisle to give liberals victories in high-profile cases. This is not an everyday event, but nowhere else in America do conservatives cross over nearly so much when it matters. Thus, Chief Justice Roberts joined liberals to uphold Obamacare in three different cases over the course of eight years and also crossed the aisle to invalidate the Trump administration’s improper treatment of noncitizens in the 2020 census. He also joined liberals to affirm sweeping rights of gay employees in the private sector, in an opinion authored by a Trump appointee, Justice Gorsuch. The chief justice and another Trump appointee, Justice Kavanaugh, also sided with the liberals in little noticed but hugely consequential cases involving the presidential election of 2020.

Notwithstanding the alarms triggered by the Dobbs leak and draft, what I told the Senate back in 2018, testifying as a Never Trumper in support of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Court, remains true: “Americans generally and with good reason view today’s Court more favorably than today’s Congress and Presidency. The current justices are outstanding lawyers who do loads of close reading, careful writing, and deep thinking; try hard to see other points of view; spend lots of time pondering constitutional law; and spend little time posturing for cameras, dialing for dollars, tweeting snark, or pandering to uninformed extremists or arrogant donors. Can today’s President and Congress say the same?”

In short, I am a Democrat who supports abortion rights but opposes Roe. The Court’s ruling in the case was simply not grounded either in what the Constitution says or in the long-standing, widely embraced mores and practices of the country. Perhaps I’m wrong in thinking that, and perhaps the Dobbs draft is wrong too. But there is nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political in what Justice Alito has written.

Mr. Amar is a professor of constitutional law at Yale and the author, most recently, of “The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840.”

Appeared in the May 14, 2022, print edition as ‘The End of Roe v. Wade A Precedent With Weak Constitutional Reasoning’.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-end-of-roe-v-wade-11652453609?mod=Searchresults_pos3&page=1

Share

Princeton Targets a Dissenting Professor

Princeton University

Photo: Seth Wenig/Associated Press

Everyone knows American universities are dangerous places these days if you dare to express unpopular views. But Princeton University’s handling of classics professor Joshua Katz is still shocking for its procedural double jeopardy.

This week brought grim news for Joshua Katz, a classics professor who drew ire on campus in 2020 after criticizing a faculty letter on race relations. The Journal reported Thursday that Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber has asked the university’s trustees to fire Mr. Katz, who has tenure. The official complaint is a procedural charge, based on Mr. Katz’s supposed noncompliance in an investigation into his relationship with a student.

Princeton found in 2018 that the professor had maintained a consensual sexual relationship with an undergraduate student more than a decade earlier. Mr. Katz was suspended for a year without pay. Yet the university opened a new investigation of his conduct after Mr. Katz publicly criticized a faculty letter on race relations in 2020.

His colleagues decided the second time around that Mr. Katz hadn’t been fully forthright in the first investigation, and concluded that he could be punished again. The dean of faculty insists that Mr. Katz’s politics “is not germane to the case.” And if you believe that, you have been living in a cave off-campus.

Yet Mr. Eisgruber claims the proposed firing has nothing to do with political speech.

Mr. Katz became a target the moment he criticized a statement signed by hundreds of his colleagues that called for radical changes to Princeton’s policies on race and employment. In the weeks after George Floyd’s murder, the faculty authors sought specific concessions for nonwhite professors, including “course relief and summer salary.”

Mr. Katz responded by asserting the principle that all races should be treated equally. He suggested that progressive advocacy groups had worsened the intellectual climate on campus, and he referred to the Black Justice League as “a small local terrorist organization,” saying it had intimidated students.

Mr. Eisgruber condemned Mr. Katz “personally and strongly” for such language. But Mr. Katz wrote an article in these pages while the controversy raged, announcing that “the administration is not investigating me.” He even praised Princeton for standing up for free speech.

He underestimated the determination of his critics to purge a dissenting voice. The same week that Princeton’s trustees discussed Mr. Katz’s fate, they praised Mr. Eisgruber for his “outspoken defense of free speech.” The world now knows how hollow those words are.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/princeton-targets-a-dissenting-professor-joshua-katz-christopher-eisgruber-11653086208?mod=hp_opin_pos_5#cxrecs_s

Share

Hillary Clinton Did It

The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon.

Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI. In September 2016, Mr. Sussmann took claims of a secret Trump connection to Russia’s Alfa Bank to the FBI and said he wasn’t acting on behalf of any client. Prosecutors say he was working for the Clinton campaign.

Prosecutors presented evidence this week that Mr. Sussmann worked with cyber-researchers and opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to produce the claims on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and to feed them to the FBI. An FBI agent testified that a bureau analysis quickly rejected the claims as implausible. (Mr. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.)

Prosecutors asked Mr. Mook about his role in funneling the Alfa Bank claims to the press. Mr. Mook admitted the campaign lacked expertise to vet the data, yet the decision was made by Mr. Mook, policy adviser Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser), communications director Jennifer Palmieri and campaign chairman John Podesta to give the Alfa Bank claims to a reporter. Mr. Mook said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the plan and approved it. A story on the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations then appeared in Slate, a left-leaning online publication.

On Oct. 31, 2016, Mr. Sullivan issued a statement mentioning the Slate story, writing, “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” Mrs. Clinton tweeted Mr. Sullivan’s statement with the comment: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” “Apparently” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.

Most of the press will ignore this news, but the Russia-Trump narrative that Mrs. Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three-year investigation to nowhere. Vladimir Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s

Share

Coffee & Covid. Monday, May 23, 2022: BABY AIRLIFT

He is not making this stuff up.  They couldn’t make it up on SNL. “And you are voting for who?”  mrossol

*COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY*

🔥 Late last week, Elon Musk went shopping for lawyers on Twitter. He tweeted, “Tesla is building a hardcore litigation department … [that] will report directly to me. Please send 3 to 5 bullet points describing evidence of exceptional ability.”

In a followup, Musk promised that, if defending a lawsuit, he would never try to win a lawsuit if the people suing Tesla were justified. And he pledged that if the claims were unjust, he would never settle.

In a further followup, possibly explaining why he was using a non-traditional way to find counsel, Musk said he was “Looking for hardcore streetfighters, not white-shoe lawyers … There will be blood.”

I have to admit, it sounds like fun. What do you think? Should I throw my helmet into the Thunderdome? Or keep on fighting for the Constitution? Let me know in the comments.

🔥 Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro said late last week that he won’t be signing any WHO “pandemic treaty.” Maybe we should reject it, too?

🔥 Over the weekend, the hashtag “#BillGatesBioTerrorist” secured the top spot on Twitter.

🔬 JAMA published a research letter last week titled, “Routine Surveillance and Vaccination on a University Campus During the Spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant.” The researches studied nearly 20,000 Cornell students’ de-identified covid data. Check out the conclusion:

Cornell’s experience shows that traditional public health interventions were not a match for Omicron. While vaccination protected against severe illness, it was not sufficient to prevent rapid spread, even when combined with other public health measures including widespread surveillance testing.

It’s not clear how they determined that the jabs protected against severe illness because the students are in one of the least affected demographics anyway.

The bottom line is, Cornell required its elite students to wear masks, get boosted (97% jabbed), PCR tests every week, and be immediately contact traced. In spite of all that “safety” nonsense, the mask mandates completely failed, and 98.6% of reported covid cases were breakthrough infections.

When will the public health experts concede that all their dumb ideas blew up on the launch pad creating a bill for injuries that is still being calculated? Could it have something to do with how it only took 14 months to go from “I will shut down the virus” and “build back better” to “there WILL be food shortages?”

📈 Gas was $7.29 a gallon in LA yesterday. Over just the last two weeks, the average price of gas in the US reached $4.71 per gallon, and JP Morgan predicted an average of $6 a gallon by August, which seems, well, optimistic at this rate.

🔥 Over the weekend, former senator Joe Biden tweeted that his Administration just delivered “70,000 tons” of infant formula to Indiana.

The problem was, it was 70,000 POUNDS, not tons. Pounds, Joe. Sadly, we have a disinformer at the top of the government, somebody should probably call the gov … oh. Never mind. Anyway, they deleted his tweet after a short period of relentless Twitter mocking, I mean misinformation, sorry, I mean domestic terrorism.

I have SO many questions about this story. It ran with great fanfare over the weekend, with stories showing a tarmacked C-150 cargo plane loaded with pallets of … something, I guess it could be baby formula. We trust the media, right?

Anyway. Why is the MILITARY airlifting baby formula? To INDIANA. Are we a third-world country now? Don’t answer that. The question is, why not Fedex? I mean, Fedex SPECIALIZES in delivering retail products fast. That’s their WHOLE JOB. Or what about AMAZON? Or, why not just ship the formula straight to Indiana in a couple semi’s, right in the containers it came in? And, where did the formula COME FROM? Why can’t WE just order the formula for ourselves, right from the source? Do they have a website?

The whole thing looks just like those staged Chinese psyop photo ops in the New York Times showing thirty government workers unloading ten boxes of food from the back of a semi in Shanghai. Totally staged. Totally fake. Makes no sense.

Stop propagandizing us.

🔥 ABC News ran a story last week headlined, “Carbon Removal Technologies To Get $3.5B Federal Investment.” The sub-head explained, “The federal government is investing in machines that suck giant amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air in the hopes of reducing damage from climate change.”

Spoiler alert. In the 2006 movie “Idiocracy,” time travelers discovered that the future US was starving because the government required farmers to use orange soda instead of water on their crops. But they had no idea why the plants were dying.

Now it’s 2022, and it’s real life. Don’t plants NEED carbon dioxide? I mean, even if these newly-enriched contractors COULD build billion-dollar machines big enough to make a difference, and even if the machines WOULDN’T create more carbon than they remove from the air, setting all those valid objections aside, what if the machines ACTUALLY WORK? Are they SURE there won’t be any unintended consequences? How do the plants feel about this?

We’ve GOT to be in a simulation, right? And it has a new head programmer with a really twisted sense of humor? Please tell me I’m dreaming all this.

🙈 Yesterday, the Epoch Times published an article headlined, “Biden Sounds Alarm on Monkeypox as CDC Alerts American Doctors.” Speaking to reporters in South Korea, Biden said the pox is something “everybody should be concerned about,” adding, “We’re working on it hard” — that’s what SHE said — “to figure out what we do and what vaccine, if any, may be available for it.”

Great, a new vaccine. According to Epoch, as of May 21st, about 80 cases of monkeypox have been reported in Australia, the United States, Canada, and Europe. Weird how the small number of cases unnaturally broke out all over the world at the same time.

BBC News ran an article this morning headlined, “World faces big challenges over Covid, monkeypox and wars – WHO.” For some reason the story is tagged on the BBC’s website with “Russia-Ukraine War.”

The WHO held an “emergency meeting” yesterday to discuss the new outbreak. That’s not our only problem. Channeling multiple chapters from the Book of Revelation, WHO chief Tedros Ghebreyesus said, “We face a formidable convergence of disease, drought, famine and war, fuelled by climate change, inequity and geopolitical rivalry.”

Geopolitical rivalry and wars? Since when is that the WHO’s business?

Regarding the pox, experts are baffled. The pox appears to be genetically identical to an already existing strain, and the BBC said “currently there is little evidence to suggest this is a new variant.”

Who needs evidence?

🙈 Reminder: there was a monkeypox outbreak in six states in the US in 2003, supposedly from, and I am not making this up, infected pet prairie dogs. At that time, there were 72 cases reported, most of which were mild, and no deaths. In July 2021, there was a case of monkeypox reported in Dallas, and in November, one in Maryland. Right now in 2022 we only have a few reported cases in the US. So why the freakout? Could it have anything to do with elevated levels of shingles (i.e., chickenPOX)?

💉 The White House’s Covid Czar, Dr. Ashish Jha, predicted this weekend that Americans will have to deal with covid by regularly taking vaccines — for the indefinite future.

CNN’s John Berman asked Jha, “what does that mean? Does that mean we are going to be getting shots every six months? My wife just got her fourth shot, right, she had her two initial shots plus a booster, plus a booster. Are we talking two shots a year?”

Jha replied, “in the short run, yeah, like, we have had to boost people about every six months. Over the long run, I am confident we will develop more durable vaccines, the virus will also settle down. And so my hope is over the long run, this comes down to maybe a once a year shot, but right now we’re having to boost people a little bit more frequently because of how quickly the virus has continued to evolve.”

MY hope is that Jha doesn’t get HIS hope.

*THE MINORITY REPORT*

🚀 Yesterday, the Epoch Times ran a story headlined, “Gen. Milley Warns West Point Graduates of Likelihood of War With Russia, China.” General Mark Milley is the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs. His pronouns are he/him and they/them. Mercifully, Milley still identifies as male. No offense, ladies.

Milley addressed the graduates with the cheerful message that the US is rapidly losing its military advantage on the global stage, that Chinese artificial intelligence bots will ’swarm’ our soldiers and battle tech with tiny killer robots, and that “the world you’re being commissioned into has the potential for significant international conflict between great powers — and that potential is increasing, not decreasing.”

What could be making the potential for world conflict increase? It’s baffling.

Have a marvelous Monday! I’ll see you guys back here tomorrow morning.

Share

You can help get the truth out and spread optimism and hope: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-

MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Twitter: @jchilders98
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-may-23-2022?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyODc2Mzg5NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTYyMDUyNjksIl8iOiJPZjdrMSIsImlhdCI6MTY1MzMyODA3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjUzMzMxNjc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNDYzNDA5Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.Ds3eUM4lkpWsxq766E6MbxZ7RDgJvJJjHhLxP5fGlUg&s=r

Share