‘They’re Just Trying to Hide Him’: Greg Gutfeld Suspects Something Wrong with Timing of Biden’s COVID Diagnosis
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld on Friday trained his skepticism on the subject of President Joe Biden’s health and diagnosed a possible sympathy ploy.
“I don’t question the diagnosis at all. I just questioned the timing of it,” he said on the Fox News show “The Five.”
Biden announced Thursday he tested positive for COVID-19.
“I mean, first you had that wacko cancer gaffe from two days ago, right? In which the media rushed to the defense: ‘Oh, no, he had skin cancer.’ That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the fact that he said he got cancer from oil, and it made no sense,” Gutfeld said.
“But now you have polling that shows that he’s less popular than getting punched in the face. So there could be a reason for a lot of this, “ he said.
Speaking of Biden’s handlers, he added, “They’re just trying to hide him, because that’s the only thing that works and perhaps maybe to generate some sympathy.”
He said if the ploy works, another could follow.
“Next week, they’re going to say you know, ‘he has fibroids,’ because, as you know, men can get pregnant.”
A report on The Hill framed Biden’s enforced isolation as a possible loss for a president who was seeking to hit the road to support Democrats in the midterm elections. But one commentator said that’s no loss.
“Based on his persistently falling polling, there’s no evidence the president has been especially effective on the road selling his accomplishments or breaking through,” Bruce Mehlman, an assistant secretary at the Commerce Department in the administration of former President George W. Bush, said.
Mehlman said there is a negative, though, because it renews debate over Biden’s competence at age 79.
“The bigger risk of his testing positive is reinforcement of the ‘he’s old and weak’ narrative that critics regularly assert,” Mehlman said.
On Sunday, Dr. Kevin O’Connor said Biden’s health is improving.
“His pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate and temperature all remain normal,” the physician said in a memo released on Sunday. His predominant symptom now is a sore throat …. His voice remains a bit deep,” he said, according to Reuters.
I, for one, am tickled pink that our ruling class has finally come out against child rape. This is something new. For several decades now, the position of government officials, both political parties, think tanks, the Bush family, district attorneys and the entire media has been: We’re going to foist primitive, peasant cultures on America and then lie to the public about how this is changing our country.
We recently found out about one big way that third-world immigrants are enriching us. Soon after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the media began talking nonstop about a “10-year-old rape victim” who couldn’t get an abortion in Ohio and had to travel to Indiana. The “10-year-old rape victim” was discussed on a loop on MSNBC and even made it into a speech by President Joe Biden.
But then, a bunch of spoilsports started questioning whether “10-year-old rape victim” existed. The attorney general of Ohio said on July 12 he had no evidence of a 10-year-old rape victim, despite the reporting of such a crime being mandatory.
With their backs against the wall, the pro-abortion crowd broke longstanding strictures against mentioning the rapey-ness of our “New Americans” by producing the rapist: Gerson Fuentes, 27, an illegal alien from Guatemala.
Oh, now I see.
The abortion ladies thought they could get away with revealing the child rape victim, while refusing to reveal the child rape perpetrator. When that failed, they wantonly defied the rest of their coalition and told the truth about one of the Democrats’ pets, an illegal immigrant.
Once the pro-abortion crowd identified the rapist, nothing about the story was surprising. It has all the earmarks of an immigrant child rape:
The crime is particularly vile — CHECK!
The raping had been going on for some time — CHECK!
The rapist is shocked that anyone thinks he did anything wrong — CHECK!
Luckily, I am Johnny on the Spot when it comes to immigrant child-rapists, having included nearly 100 such cases in my book “Adios, America!” — as well as the sensational, flood-the-zone news coverage the U.S. media devote to criminal immigrants. (Sarcasm.)
As far as I know, there’s only one group in the country trying to keep a running tally of immigrant child rapes: North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement (NCFire.info). Here’s NCFire’s list of illegal immigrant child rapists in North Carolina, so far this year:
2022 Monthly Child Rapes by Illegal Aliens:
6. June 2022: 20 illegal aliens arrested for 42 child rape/child sexual assault charges
5. May 2022: 18 illegal aliens arrested for 42 child rape/child sexual assault charges
4. April 2022: 19 illegal aliens arrested for 72 child rape/child sexual assault charges
3. March 2022: 30 illegal aliens arrested for 110 child rape/child sexual assault charges
2. February 2022: 27 illegal aliens arrested for 84 child rape/child sexual assault charges
1. January 2022: 18 illegal aliens arrested for 96 child rape/child sexual assault charges
Again, that’s only in a single state. And only when the immigrant is illegal.
WHY DOESN’T THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT THIS?
Unfortunately, our media are too busy reporting on apocryphal gang rapes by the Duke lacrosse team and “frat boys” at the University of Virginia to bother mentioning the epidemic of child rape by immigrants from peasant cultures pouring into our country by the million.
How far into the stories about UVA and Duke did you have to read to find out that the (falsely) accused rapists were “privileged white men”?
By contrast, whenever the media deign to mention an immigrant rapist, the story will appear in — at most — one local newspaper. Further, both the heinous nature of the crime and the immigration status of the rapist will be hidden. (How about a news report on the Duke lacrosse case, appearing exclusively in the local paper at the bottom of page A-18, titled, “Area Men Arrested.”)
In 2013, an illegal alien from Guatemala, German Rolando Vicente-Sapon, was convicted of kidnapping his 16-year-old cousin, transporting her to the U.S. (also illegally), and holding her as his sex slave for years.
Only one newspaper in the country reported the story: the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Quiz: Was the headline —
“Illegal Alien sentenced for Incest, Child Rape, Kidnapping and Sex Slavery,” OR
There’s no question that the national media would never have breathed a word about the Fuentes case — but for the doubters. So a big shoutout to the feminists for putting abortion-on-demand above open borders. If only politicians cared as much about our country as pro-choicers do about abortion.
Bad as he is, there is someone worse who is making the rounds in DC trying to drum up support for a 2024 run.
Dementia Joe won’t be running as the Democratic nominee in ’24. You know you’re in trouble when a NYT-Sienna College poll shows that 94% of Dems under 30 prefer someone other than Joe to run.
Senate Majority Leader Schumer has begged his colleagues to appear to be unified and not criticize either Biden or his centrist bane Joe Manchin (D-WVa). But that hasn’t prevented them from refusing to promise to back Biden no matter what–though they obviously don’t want to say it in public.
So, who would be worse than Biden?
Here’s a hint: what state did Q tell us to watch to see the way the “progressives” would try to take the country?
Another hint: Who barely survived a recall vote in that above mentioned state?
If your answers were California and Gavin Newsom — congratulations!
One is just a puppet, the other wants to be puppet master.
Yes, Gonad Gruesome has been visiting senators in Washington, DC.
Per The Hill:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is positioning himself and his state as a national leader on climate issues amid speculation of a possible 2024 White House bid.
Newsom, even as the Biden administration is increasingly stymied by the Supreme Court and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), hopes to show how the Golden State can lead the way on tackling climate change while Washington is in a quagmire.
Newsom’s state budget package, unveiled in January, included $22.5 billion to combat climate change. In May, he revised the proposal to add another $9.5 billion.
Newsom also spearheaded the state’s strictest-in-the-nation tailpipe emissions standards through a legal standoff with the Trump administration, which attempted to repeal a federal waiver allowing the rules. The waiver was restored by Biden Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan in 2022.
California, a state where gas prices jumped to $6 and $7 per gallon in some locales earlier this summer, plans to phase out oil production in the state by 2045.
The state, which would have the world’s fifth-largest economy if it were a country, has also formed a number of international climate partnerships under Newsom, including collaborations with Canada, New Zealand, Japan and China.
Newsome aired an attack ad over the July 4 holidays against Fla governor Ron DeSantis, a likely Republican standard bearer. But he claimed that the ad “Don’t let them take our freedoms away…” was not the opening shot in a presidential campaign run. (“Them” being Trump and DeSantis.)
IMHO Newsom makes ex-gov Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown look like a thoughtful centrist.
The vote about operating a Planned Parenthood at John Glenn High School in Norwalk is scheduled to take place on Monday evening. (Glenn, an Ohio native, is spinning in his grave at supersonic speed. -TPR)
According to the proposal, the clinic will not be notifying parents about any students that they provide services to.
If he has California stopping oil production by 2045 and is okay with putting an abortion clinic in a High School, imagine what he’d do in the White House.
Looks like the “Golden State” is actually Iron Pyrite.
In a school discrimination case that could set a precedent for beleaguered parents across the country frustrated with Critical Race Theory-related issues in the classroom, a California woman is set to file suit against her child’s school district after her 7-year-old daughter was punished and humiliated for drawing a Black Lives Matter picture for her friendsthat also included the sentiment that “any lives” matter. In addition, the school never informed her about the incident or the punishment; she only learned about it after another parent mentioned it to her a year later.
At the time of the incident, Black Lives Matter rhetoric could be seen and heard everywhere, from the news to professional sports and even in the classroom. Jane, who is white, decided to draw a picture of her friends, who spanned the racial diaspora at the diverse elementary school that offers a unique “two-way language immersion” program in Spanish/English.
Chelsea Boyle’s daughter was a first-grader at Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, CA, an Orange County suburb nestled about halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego. At the time of the incident, Black Lives Matter rhetoric could be seen and heard everywhere, from the news to professional sports and even in the classroom. Jane, who is white, decided to draw a picture of her friends, who spanned the racial diaspora at the diverse elementary school that offers a unique “two-way language immersion” program in Spanish/English.
The picture was meant to represent her closest friends of all different races, and in her uneven, first-grader scrawl, she wrote “Black Lives mater [sic]” at the top, followed by another sentiment, “any lives.” The picture went home with one of Jane’s friends.
The school never informed her about the incident or the punishment; she only learned about it after another parent mentioned it to her a year later.
Boyle said Jesus Becerra, the principal of Viejo Elementary School in Mission Viejo, forced the girl, then in the first grade, to make a public apology. She had to deliver the apology on the playground in front of her fellow students and school staff. To drive home the point that deviation from prescribed language about race is not allowed, the child was “benched” as punishment, meaning she had her recess time revoked and was forced to sit on a bench while her classmates played during their free time.
In an even more infuriating turn of events, Boyle says she wasn’t notified of the incident by school officials. It was not until nearly a year later, in March of 2022, that she heard about the issue from someone who was a mutual friend of both Boyle and the offended family.
All of this had happened without her knowledge, even though Boyle was heavily involved in school activities and volunteered hundreds of hours in the classroom and for school events. She had been kept in the dark, and her daughter, not fully understanding what had happened or what she had done wrong, had kept the incident to herself.
It wasn’t “all lives matter,” it was “any life.” It was something she came up on her own. She just didn’t understand it. It was completely innocent, and that broke my heart.
Boyle said she was shocked to learn what had happened.
My immediate reaction is just…I feel like I got hit by a bus, but I didn’t understand it. And I thought, oh, you know, my daughter has just been discriminated against. And I didn’t even want to contact a lawyer, but I just didn’t know what had happened to us.
When she talked to her daughter, it became clear that she had no idea why she had been punished for the picture. Boyle says her family does not engage in discussions about specific Black Lives Matter issues or other political topics at the moment because her family is still so young. She says her daughter came up with the picture and phrasing on her own, with perfectly innocent intentions, so not only did the punishment seem unwarranted to Boyle, it seemed cruel.
And then when I talked to my daughter — I think she said it was so sad. And and I said, “Well, what did the principal say to you?” and [she said] “I can’t draw pictures anymore. And I can’t write those words.” And I said, “Why did you write [those words]?”
I don’t teach [about] Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, [or] anything in my house because I think my children are too young [for politics]. My children see color as a color, as a description. I am trying to raise them the way the world should be, not the way it is. That’s how I’m trying to make my personal change. [H]er best friend is brown — not black, but brown — and she didn’t understand why she didn’t matter, why her friend didn’t matter. She has another friend that is Japanese; she doesn’t understand.
It wasn’t “all lives matter,” it was “any life.” It was something she came up on her own. She just didn’t understand it. It was completely innocent, and that broke my heart.
Boyle says the most concerning part of what she felt was an unwarranted punishment was its effect on Jane’s desire to draw. Jane is challenged with ADHD, and drawing has been her biggest and most therapeutic outlet. She had wondered why her artistic 7-year-old had suddenly stopped drawing when previously it was hard to find her without a marker or crayon in her hands. As it turned out, as a part of Jane’s punishment, Principal Becerra allegedly instructed Jane to refrain from drawing any more pictures for her friends at school.
Boyle was heartbroken and immediately reached out to Becerra and other district officials to register her disappointment and try to find some clarity. She says, admittedly she was a bit frenzied.
[I sent] my super angry, all caps email. Within 24 hours, nobody got back to me. So I sent another email, a lot more well-thought-out, took my time, and I said, “Listen, this is what I want. I want a formal apology to me, I want a formal apology to my daughter, and I want a formal apology to this other family, because they didn’t know that you guys didn’t contact me and you made it very uncomfortable for a lot of the parents and students at school, unbeknownst to me. And that’s all I want.”
Haberbush says they essentially told her to “take a hike” and what she was saying was not true.
The Orange County mother said she was hesitant to contact a lawyer but felt strongly that what happened to her daughter was wrong, and the insult was compounded by the terse response from Becerra and relative silence from her school board representatives. Boyle identified one board member, Gila Jones, as responsive and concerned, but in the end, Jones indicated there wasn’t much she or the school board could do in this case.
Interestingly, district disciplinary guidelines provide an apparatus for parents to escalate complaints about disciplinary actions. That apparatus ultimately ends with the authority of the school board.
Not only was Boyle denied the opportunity to lodge her complaints in the timely manner supposedly guaranteed by the official disciplinary procedural guidelines, the school board was not able to provide any resolution either.
Boyle had seen enough. She researched pro-bono civil rights attorneys and found herself connected with The Gavel Project, a Phoenix-based non-profit charity committed to representing civil rights in government overreach cases. From there, CEO and founder Ryan Heath helped her to secure in-state representation by Alexander Haberbush of the LexRex Institute, a “legal and public outreach organization that works to empower private individuals to hold government officials at every level accountable to their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of their various states by informing, persuading, and advocating on behalf of those who have been denied its liberties.”
Haberbush says this is more than a case of one wronged child and her angry mother. It could set a legal precedent for other parents dealing with similar things, creating a legal ripple effect that could have drastic consequences for overreaching public school administrators and districts when it comes to compelled speech. And that is exactly how Haberbush identifies this case…one of compelled speech, which would place the burden of proof on Becerra and the school.
It’s a compelled speech issue; obviously compelled speech is one of the toughest tests that they have to meet, if they want to say that this is valid, “we can do it.” We be believe that there is no way that they can meet that standard and we believe this is an egregious deprivation of her rights and that Chelsea should be vindicated.
He added that he took on the case because he believes Boyle and her daughter were genuinely wronged, and he doesn’t want to see it happen again to anyone else.
She did not call Ryan and did not call my office because she was trying to make a buck. In fact, we will not take clients who are only out to make a buck. What she wanted from the school was an apology, [for them to recognize] they had done wrong, to apologize to her daughter and apologize to her.
Haberbush intimated that while money is not a motivator, his firm does occasionally seek damages and may choose to do so in this case. However, what they really want is a formal apology and a judgment.
Primarily what we want is a judicial determination and recognition that wrongdoing occurred, so that it won’t happen again because nobody should have to go through this.
Boyle hopes that the summer break has given the Viejo Elementary principal some time to relax and ponder the situation.
I’m serious. I don’t want this to happen to my kids. I don’t want it to happen to your kids.
Haberbush says the next step in the process is to file a lawsuit against the district. He feels it is necessary to force the school to respond to his client.
When asked if Boyle had plans to return her daughter to the same school in the fall, the small business owner admitted she did want to send her back but wondered what challenges her family may face as legal avenues are being pursued.
Jesus Becerra could not be reached for comment as of the publication of this article.
Reported first by RedState, as well as The Western Journal.
My advice to Mrs. Boyle would be NOT to send her daughter back to that school. These wokester elitists will increase their harassment of the daughter by several orders of magnitude in retaliation. This IS California, after all, home of Nasty Piglosi and Craven Newscum.
Police in the Netherlands opened fire Tuesday on farmers in tractors protesting the country’s radical policies on reducing emissions.
The incident occurred around 10:40 p.m. that day in the town of Heerenveen when a group of farmers on a tractor allegedly tried to crash into police officers and their vehicles near the entrance to the A32 highway, Friesland police announced Tuesday.
Police said that they fired warning shots and shots targeting the tractor during the incident. The farmers fled from the scene once their tractor was hit.
Police later apprehended the tractor riders, according to local law enforcement, about 4 miles away from Heerenveen. Officers arrested three people in connection with the encounter.
The arrested comprised of a 46-year-old man, a 34-year-old man and a 16-year-old boy, according to a Tuesday news release from the Friesland police.
“The investigation into the incident is ongoing. This is an investigation led by the public prosecutor into the facts and circumstances,” police said.
Depending on the investigation’s results, “it will become clear whether the persons will be detained longer or not,” the news release stated.
The Epoch Times disputed local law enforcement’s account of events, pointing to footage of the incident on Twitter.
*English translation: Because an officer fired shots, the National Criminal Investigation Department was informed to conduct an independent investigation. There is no more information at the moment.
The Epoch Times said the footage “does not clearly show the vehicle approaching either officers or service vehicles.”
News of the Tuesday encounter came as farmers across the country took to the streets with their cattle and farming equipment in the last few weeks to protest against the Dutch government’s plan to lower nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions by 50 percent by 2030.
As previously reported by The Western Journal, the plan entailed cutting nitrogen oxides and ammonia by up to 70 percent in areas near protected nature regions. The figure went up to 95 percent in some areas.
In a statement last month, the Dutch government said, “The honest message … is that not all farmers can continue their business,” The Associated Press reported.
According to the wire service, the government said that farmers who survived the anti-pollution crackdowns would have to change their way of farming.
Angered by being forced to bear the brunt of anti-pollution policies, farmers marched near politicians’ homes in protest, smeared manure on roads and blocked traffic on highways and near the border crossing with Germany.
According to the German news agency Deutsche Welle, they also blocked access to supermarket distribution centers.
Dutch politicians have publicly condemned such protests, with Prime Minister Mark Rutte saying on June 29 during a news conference in Madrid, “You can demonstrate, but in a civilized way.”
“So don’t block highways, don’t set off fireworks outside a minister’s house and spread manure and … scare two children, and endanger families,” Rutte said.
Friesland Police did not respond to the Times’ request for comment.
Snopes usually doesn’t get it right, but I know of two occasions that they did. One was about Thomas and the aborted fetus.
In a June 2022 dissenting opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asserted a debunked claim about the use of aborted fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines.
Rating
False
This is the second one.
Five conservative Supreme Court justices dishonestly suggested, in Senate confirmation hearings, that they thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning.
Rating
False
Fact Check
In May 2022, after news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court had provisionally voted to overturn the abortion protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the left-wing political action committee MeidasTouch briefly caused “#LyingGOP” to trend on Twitter, with a video that accused five Republican-appointed justices of lying about their intentions to overturn the landmark ruling.
However, the creators of the video badly misrepresented the full scope of relevant facts in two important ways, and we are issuing a rating of “False.”
First, they engaged in highly selective editing of much longer and more nuanced archival clips of future justices during their U.S. Senate confirmation hearings, in order to grossly misrepresent the substance of what they said.
Second, they appeared to misunderstand or misrepresent the meaning of a Supreme Court precedent. In brief, describing a ruling as an important precedent is not tantamount to giving a commitment not to overturn that ruling, or indicating you believe that ruling cannot be overruled. Therefore, the sweeping allegations of premeditated dishonesty on the part of GOP-appointed justices were as poorly supported by evidence as they were wrongheaded.
The following is our breakdown of what the MeidasTouch “megaviral supercut” video claimed, lined up against what the factual record shows.
Justice Clarence Thomas
File photo of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. Source: Bettmann / Getty Images.
The following is how Meidas Touch presented Thomas’s remarks:
Clarence Thomas: I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue.
Caption: HE LIED
In this section of the video, MeidasTouch mutilated a 1991 quotation from then-Supreme Court nominee Thomas, and grossly misrepresented the substance and meaning of his remarks. In reality, Thomas absolutely did not provide any assurances on how he might rule on the specific case of Roe v. Wade, nor on the question of abortion rights.
U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, had been attempting to pin down Thomas’s views on whether the U.S. Constitution protects abortion rights, and had highlighted what he presented as discrepancies in Thomas’s past pronouncements.
In particular, Metzenbaum asked Thomas to resolve an apparent gap between his putative support for a constitutionally-enshrined right to privacy, more broadly, and abortion rights in particular. Metzenbaum put it to Thomas that:
I fear that you, like other nominees before the committee, could assure us that you support a fundamental right to privacy, but could also decline to find that a woman’s right to choose is protected by the constitution.
At the culmination of his remarks, Metzenbaum asked Thomas:
I must ask you to tell us here and now whether you believe that the constitution protects a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, and I am not asking you as to how you would vote in connection with any case before the court.
In response, Thomas prevaricated, as so many judicial nominees have in recent decades:
I am afraid though, on your final question, Senator, that it is important for any of us who are judges, in areas that are very deeply contested…I think that to take a position would undermine my ability to be impartial…
I am afraid that to begin to answer questions about what my specific position is in these contested areas would greatly — or leave the impression that I prejudged this issue.
When Metzenbaum again attempted to pin down the nominee, Thomas again prevaricated, providing the quotation that would be mutilated and misrepresented by MeidasTouch in their video:
Senator, as I noted yesterday, and I think we all feel strongly in this country about our privacy — I do — I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue. [Emphasis is added].
As the transcript makes clear, MeidasTouch cut off the second half of Thomas’s sentence, in which he stipulated that he had “no reason…to prejudge” or “to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion.”
In reality, Thomas was repeatedly urged and asked to make pronouncements on abortion rights, and refused to do so. The notion, therefore, that in this exchange he somehow gave an assurance that he would not ever vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is utterly without basis in fact.
Justice Samuel Alito
WASHINGTON – JANUARY 10: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito answers questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the second day of his confirmation hearings January 10, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The following is how MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks:
Alito: Roe v Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. It has been challenged on a number of occasions and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision. When a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value.
Caption: HE LIED
Once again, this presentation gives the grossly misleading impression that, in his confirmation hearings, Alito indicated he would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade. In reality, the full scope of his remarks clearly shows that — like most judicial nominees — Alito very carefully avoided giving any assurances about how he might vote on that precedent.
The clip in question came from Alito’s hearings on Jan. 11, 2006. Readers can examine a full transcript of the relevant exchange, or watch a video of it.
Ironically, the starting point for the exchange was the concern expressed by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that Alito had “decided to create categories of cases that have been decided by the Court that you will concede have constitutional protection, but you have left in question the future of Roe v. Wade.”
In other words, Durbin was concerned that Alito had not stated, for the record, that Roe v. Wade was no longer open to overturning, and indeed had in the past asserted that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”
So while MeidasTouch presented Alito’s remarks as proof that he thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning — “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court” — what those remarks actually constituted was Alito’s careful avoidance of describing the ruling as such. Here’s the key exchange:
Durbin: Do you believe [Roe v Wade] is the settled law of the land? Alito: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes [as] in Casey based on stare decisis, and I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis… Durbin: Is it the settled law of the land? Alito: It is a — if settled means that it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis, in that way.
What Alito is saying here is that Roe v. Wade is clearly a precedent whose conclusions have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court, and would not lightly be overturned, taking into account the doctrine of stare decisis — the legal principle of deference to precedent expressed in the Latin phrase, which means “let stand what has been decided.”
What Alito is not saying — indeed, what he is scrupulously avoiding saying, despite Durbin’s best efforts — is that Roe v Wade is beyond overturning, like various other landmark precedents he had mentioned elsewhere in the hearings, such as Brown v. the Board of Education.
So the full scope of Alito’s remarks, when viewed objectively and in context, actually show the opposite of what the brief clip, strategically cut away by MeidasTouch, appeared to show.
Justice Neil Gorsuch
WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 22: Judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, March 22, 2017 in Washington. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The following is how Meidas Touch presented Gorsuch’s remarks.
Gorsuch: Roe v Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent, like any other.
Caption: HE LIED
MeidasTouch badly misrepresented Gorsuch’s remarks in the same way as it did Alito’s. In reality, by describing Roe v. Wade as a precedent “worthy of treatment as precedent,” Gorsuch was assiduously avoiding going any further or categorizing it as beyond overturning.
The pattern should be familiar by now. Gorsuch’s remarks came during a Senate confirmation hearing on March 21, 2017, and can be read and viewed in their proper context.
During his questioning of the Trump nominee, Judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Gorsuch whether he thought DC v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision in which the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to bear arms, had been correctly decided. Gorsuch said:
Senator, I would respectfully respond that it [DC v Heller] is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as a good judge, you do not approach that question anew, as if it had never been decided. That would be a wrong way to approach it. My personal views, I would also tell you, Mr. Chairman, belong over here. I leave those at home…Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the good job of a judge.
Gorsuch then effectively reiterated the same response in relation to several other landmark precedents, including Citizens United, Hosanna-Tabor, Gideon v. Wainwright and Roe v. Wade. On the latter case, Gorsuch said:
Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent like any other.
Did Gorsuch indicate that Roe v Wade was particularly or unusually vulnerable to being overturned? No. Did he suggest it was immune to overturning? Absolutely not.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Brett Kavanaugh speaks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, USA, 27 September 2018. (Photo: Pool / Getty Images).
The following is how MeidasTouch presented Kavanaugh’s remarks.
Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By “it” I mean Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. Been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent.
Caption: HE LIED
The clip in question came from Kavanaugh’s Senate judiciary committee hearing on Sep. 5, 2018, during questioning by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Readers can consult the relevant transcript and video.
Feinstein had been attempting to pin down Kavanaugh about his views on the status of Roe v. Wade as a precedent, and whether it “could be overturned.” Kavanaugh, stating the obvious, acknowledged Roe was a precedent and described Planned Parenthood v. Casey as “precedent on precedent” but declined to go further, despite repeated invitations by Feinstein.
Feinstein: …It has been reported that you have said that Roe is now settled law. The first question I have of you is what do you mean by “settled law”? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law? Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could be overturned, and has your views changed since you were in the Bush White House?
Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Feinstein followed up one last time, asking “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?” and Kavanaugh again prevaricated on the future sustainability of Roe v Wade:
As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember.
As we have pointed out in other cases, acknowledging that a ruling is a precedent, or even “precedent on precedent,” is not the same as saying you would never overturn it.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett
In this Oct. 14, 2020 file photo, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett speaks during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool)
The following is how MeidasTouch presented Barrett’s remarks.
Barrett: Roe is not a superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled.
Caption: THEY ALL LIED
This is perhaps the most egregious example of all, and comes from the second day of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing, Oct. 13, 2020. An official transcript was not readily available in this case, but readers can consult video footage.
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was questioning Barrett about various Supreme Court landmarks, and the concept of the “superprecedent” — a somewhat ambiguous term coined by former Sen. Arlen Specter.
In a 2013 paper, Barrett wrote “Superprecedents are cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which the precedent proceeds,” and included the following more detailed explanation from law professor Michael Gerhardt:
[T]he point at which a well-settled practice becomes, by virtue of being well-settled, practically immune to reconsideration is the point at which that precedent has become a superprecedent. Nothing becomes a superprecedent, at least in my judgment, unless it has been widely and uniformly accepted by public authorities generally, including the Court, the President, and Congress.
In that 2013 paper, Barrett also explicitly listed a handful of Supreme Court cases — including Brown v. the Board of Education — which were typically cited as superprecedents.
Earlier in her confirmation hearing, during questioning by judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Barrett had said that, in the context of legal scholarship, a superprecedent was a “precedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled” and Barrett would also similarly tell Klobuchar that the term described a precedent that was “so widely-established and agreed-upon by everyone [that] calls for its overruling simply don’t exist.”
That was the background against which Klobuchar asked Barrett whether Roe v. Wade was a superprecedent, and Barrett explicitly excluded Roe v. Wade from the small handful of cases to which that term applies. She said:
The way that [“superprecedent”] is used in the scholarship, and the way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.
…As Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v Madison and Brown v the Board, that noone questions any more.
Reading Barrett’s remarks in their proper context clearly demonstrates that she directly and explicitly exploded the frankly laughable claim, made by MeidasTouch, that she had indicated Roe v. Wade was immune to overruling. In fact, she did just the opposite.
Sources:
– CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. BRETT M. KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/html/CHRG-115shrg32765.htm. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Alito Confirmation Hearing, Day 3 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?190503-1/alito-confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-1/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 2 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-4/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-2. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Becker, Jo, and Charles Babington. “No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985.” Washington Post, 15 Nov. 2005. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/11/15/no-right-to-abortion-alito-argued-in-1985/bcbd4e02-0c2e-4dac-8caf-0d252c5630a0/.
“Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows.” POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473. Accessed 5 May 2022.
GOP Judges EXPOSED as Liars in Megaviral Supercut. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jbHMHN_mfo. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?425138-1/supreme-court-nominee-stresses-independence-calls-criticism-judges-disheartening&airingid=61108104. Accessed 5 May 2022.
“Hunting for ‘Super Precedents’ in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmations – National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/hunting-for-super-precedents-in-u.s-supreme-court-confirmations. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Judiciary, United States Congress Senate Committee on the. Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, First Session … U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
“Stare Decisis.” LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Roe Is ‘Settled Law,’ Kavanaugh Tells Collins. Democrats Aren’t Moved.” The New York Times, 21 Aug. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/kavanaugh-collins-abortion.html.
Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?449705-1/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Thomas Confirmation Hearing Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?21115-1/thomas-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Not a "far-right militia", "neo-fascists", or anything the leftists are painting them as. (Check out the Wikipedia entry to see what I'm talking about)
Five of these indicted men currently sit in pre-trial detention. They include Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and his pals Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordean, Dominic Pezzola and Zachary Rehl.
This recorded Zoom meeting was leaked by an Indicted Proud Boy that had viewed it live.
The Department of Justice had confiscated this video from the phone of Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio and hidden it from the public.
Luckily, these DOJ geniuses did not realize it still lived on a hidden YouTube link or they surely would have forced their minions at YouTube to take it down.
In the video, Proud Boy Chairman Enrique Tarrio said:
“We are never going to be the ones to cross the police barrier, or to cross something in order to get to somebody… We’re always going to be the ones standing back, right? We are always going to be the ones to f**king defend.”
The group then proceeds to discuss how they will defend themselves against Antifa attackers and avoid getting stabbed by not wearing their normal uniforms of black and yellow so they blend in.
They discuss the importance of organization, group leaders and formation. They drill in the importance of staying sober as to stay out of trouble. They pledge to stay away from women and avoid “normies” (non-Proud Boys) so they can march in an actual straight line and avoid losing each other on the day of the march. They discuss the danger of wandering off alone to “take a leak”. They mention how charming they are. They insult a female that irritated them at a past rally. They chat about going to the Dollar Tree store to purchase cutting boards to put in their shirts to act as stab-proof vests in case of an Antifa attack (multiple Proud Boys were stabbed at a rally only a few weeks prior to this meeting by Antifa infiltrators). They talk about “beer tax” and poke fun at each other. They barely mention the Capitol or President Trump.
There is no evidence pointing to a group planning on taking over the government.
Yet, the maniacal prosecution and January 6th Selective Misinformation Committee have literally alluded to a baseless conspiracy theory that a drinking fraternity (the Proud Boys) and Oath Keepers somehow magically assisted President Trump in an “insurrection”. The government, Liz Cheney and Merrick Garland’s DOJ have been planting these seeds in the minds of their minions in the fake news and spreading this misinformation everywhere.
In fact, prosecutors stated on the record that the Proud Boys began planning the Capitol Attack on December 19th, 2020, directly after President Trump tweeted to his followers to come to Washington DC on January 6th.
Yet, this video was taken eleven days after that and shows NO CONSPIRACY TO EVEN ENTER THE CAPITOL.
The Indicted Members of the Proud Boy Drinking Fraternity, now know to the Biden Regime as “Seditious Conspirators”. A new video proves innocence.
“This video should prove once and for all to your liberal and moderate friends what demonic liars these people are,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution.
“They conscientiously FRAMED INNOCENT MEN- innocent American Citizens- for political power and gain. This will go down in history as one of the most organized attacks on the American people by their own Government.”
Apparently, a reporter at the New York Times was also able to view the video after the very recent leak. We assume he was very surprised (to say the least) by its contents. Only a few days prior the New York Times had published a hit piece on the Proud Boys, including a video called “How the Proud Boys Breached the Capitol on Jan. 6: Rile Up the Normies.”
“After viewing this new evidence that the government withheld from the media and manipulated in court documents, perhaps this particular journalist realized the media has been misled by the Department of Justice.” said Ryan. “It seems he is fair in this new piece.”
“The meeting, on Dec. 30, 2020, marked the founding of a special new chapter of the Proud Boys called the Ministry of Self-Defense. The team of several dozen trusted members was intended, Mr. Tarrio told his men, to bring a level of order and professionalism to the group’s upcoming march in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, that had, by his own account, been missing at earlier Proud Boys rallies in the city.
Over nearly two hours, Mr. Tarrio and his leadership team — many of whom have since been charged with seditious conspiracy — gave the new recruits a series of directives: Adopt a defensive posture on Jan. 6, they were told. Keep the “normies” — or the normal protesters — away from the Proud Boys’ marching ranks. And obey police lines.
The prosecution has claimed that the Proud Boys began to plan their assault as early as Dec. 19, 2020 — the day that President Donald J. Trump posted a tweet announcing his Jan. 6 rally and saying it would be “wild.” But the video conference shows that, just one week before the event, when Mr. Tarrio and other Proud Boys leaders gathered their team for a meeting, they spent most of their time discussing things like staying away from alcohol and women and taking measures to ensure their own security.
The recorded meeting makes no mention of any planning that might have occurred in the week directly before the Capitol attack. And while Mr. Tarrio suggests during the meeting that the complex structure he created for the Ministry of Self-Defense was meant to be self-protective — not offensive — in nature, prosecutors have claimed that the group’s “command and control” design was instrumental in facilitating the Capitol attack.
Lawyers for the Proud Boys say the recorded meeting is a key piece of exculpatory evidence, contradicting claims by the government that a conspiracy to attack the Capitol was hatched several weeks before Jan. 6.”
YES- that was from the New York Times. Liberals read that.
The January 6th Committee is panicking as their lies are finally being revealed in the mainstream media.
*Please see the entire UNEDITED version of the video here. We want to give you the option of seeing the video in its entirety so you know that nothing of importance was edited out.
Warning-this video may incriminate these men for having filthy mouths and offensive speech habits, but NOT of Seditious Conspiracy!
This video has been mentioned in court hearings but was not available to the public.
The prosecution had viewed the recording in its entirety, and cherry-picked out bits to misconstrue evidence to incriminate the defendants.
“These sick demonic people literally knew the Proud Boys were never planning on going inside the Capitol,” said Tina Ryan of Citizens Against Political Persecution. “They saw this tape. Yet they made the conscious decision to manipulate the contents of this video and present it to the judge and the public with the malicious intent to smear these men and jeopardize their lives and fair trails.”
Proud Boy Pals and Drinking Buddies Enrique Tarrio and Joseph Biggs at a rally before they were charged with Seditious Conspiracy by the Biden Regime.
The January 6th Select Committee undoubtedly knew about this video as well- yet they still decided to move forward during their first hearing and nail the Proud Boys to a cross by knowingly accusing them of tremendous false crimes.
These Committee members hid exculpatory evidence from the American people after looking into the cameras and promising to tell the American people “the truth about January 6th”.
Proud Boy Ethan “Ruffio” Nordean before his pre-trial detainment.
“The January 6th Hearings have made it impossible for the Proud Boys on this indictment to ever get a fair shake at a trial,” said Ryan. “They demonized the Proud Boys and accused them of seditious conspiracy in a ‘special video presentation’ before their trials. The Proud Boys charges should be dropped and these Congresspeople held liable for conspiring to falsify evidence.”
This is the perfect example of how the government continues to withhold important information from the people of the United States about a day as important as January 6th.
This is one of hundreds of unreleased videos that can potentially exonerate defendants.
“The court of public opinion will decide the fate of these men,” said Ryan.
Ryan ended with this: “It is completely unethical that this type of evidence has been held from the public and manipulated to frame these men for the ‘crime of the century’. These prosecutors and Congresspeople must be held accountable.”
Andrew Jose for The Western JournalJune 27, 2022 at 3:23pm
A New York State Supreme Court Judge ruled Monday that a New York City law, which would have permitted resident non-U.S. citizens in the city the right to vote, violated state law and the state constitution.
“There is no statutory ability for the City of New York to issue inconsistent laws permitting non-citizens to vote and exceed the authority granted to it by the New York State Constitution,” Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio wrote in his 13-page ruling, according to the New York Post.
The judge said that the city’s December “Our City, Our Vote” would go against the state’s Election Law and Municipal Home Rule Law. These laws permitted only U.S. citizens above 18 to vote in state and local elections, according to the judge, the New York Post reported.
Because the city’s law went against state constitutional requirements, should the city extend voting rights to its over 800,000 resident aliens, it would first need to hold a referendum, the judge wrote in his ruling, according to the New York Times.
Non-citizen voting in New York is illegal.
In December, the New York City city council approved 33-14 with two abstentions in the measure granting the city’s resident aliens, who comprise 10 percent of its population, the right to vote, according to reporting from the Washington Post.
The law was set to come into effect in the state’s January 2023 elections, according to the Times.
Then former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio doubted the law’s survivability in the face of lawsuits, although he did not veto it.
“I still have a concern about it. Citizenship has an extraordinary value. People work so hard for it,” de Blasio said in December, according to the Associated Press.
Republican New York City city council Minority Leader, Joseph Borelli, was among the plaintiffs challenging the law..
“devalues citizenship”
In December, Borelli said that the law “devalues citizenship, and citizenship is the standard by which the state constitution issues or allows for suffrage in New York state elections at all levels,” the wire service reported.
Borelli welcomed the Monday ruling in a news release.
“Today’s decision validates those of us who can read the plain English words of our State Constitution and State statutes,” Borelli wrote in the news statement shared on his Twitter account.
“Non-citizen voting in New York is illegal,” Borelli wrote.
The law’s proponents told Gothamist that the case’s outcome was not surprising since plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Staten Island, a Republican-leaning part of the city.
“They went court shopping where they knew that the court would be favorable to them,” New York City Immigration Coalition head Murad Awawdeh told Gothamist.
“We’re gonna keep fighting to ensure that nearly 1 million New Yorkers who are building their families, paying taxes and investing in our communities have a say in their local democracy,” Awawdeh said, according to the Gothamist.
“That is what this comes down to,” Awawdeh added.
Should non citizens be allowed to vote in local elections as long as they don’t vote in state or federal elections?
What happens when a respected Congressman is cleared by the Capitol Hill Police when he had a group of his constituents on tour the day before the To do about nothing protest?
They make up stuff and drag his good name threw the mud. Based on what? Who knows. But since that mud dragging we’ve seen that the Congressman has been receiving death threats. Please play the video below.
Food processing corporation Smithfield Foods will shut down its Vernon, California, plant and scale back operations in California, Utah and Arizona, the company announced Friday.
Smithfield “will cease all harvest and processing operations in Vernon, California in early 2023 and, at the same time, align its hog production system by reducing its sow herd in its Western region,” the company said in a Friday news release.
“Smithfield is taking these steps due to the escalating cost of doing business in California,” the company said.
“It’s increasingly challenging to operate efficiently there,” Smithfield Foods spokesperson Jim Monroe told the Wall Street Journal. “We’re striving to keep costs down and keep food affordable.”
Owned by Hong-Kong-based conglomerate WH Group, Smithfield is the largest pork processor in the country by volume.
Like other food businesses nationwide, the company was hit by a combination of supply chain and labor shortages, the ongoing record-high inflation, and the war in Ukraine — a major producer of wheat—which sent grain prices soaring worldwide.
Because grain is a crucial ingredient in livestock feed, the impending grain shortage also spiked livestock feed prices, raising the California plant’s production costs.
Adding salt to economic injury were utility costs in California, which, according to the company’s spokesman, were 3.5 times higher per head than those in the 45 other plants in the country run by Smithfield.
Furthermore, according to Monroe, California’s regulatory environment has made it difficult for the pork processor to do business there.
Do you think we are heading toward a global famine?
Yes: 88% (120 Votes)
No: 12% (17 Votes)
The spokesman pointed to Proposition 12, a 2018 voter-approved rule, which mandated that food processing companies confining pigs and sows must have adequate spaces for the animals to lie down and move around.
The regulation effectively rendered confining such animals in smaller stalls unlawful, to the dismay of food producers, who pointed out that the regulation would raise food costs and push up production costs.
In addition to closing down the Vernon plant, the company said in the Friday news release that it would look at “strategic options to exit its farms in Arizona and California” in addition to scaling back its sow herd in Utah.
“Smithfield is providing transition assistance to all impacted employees, including relocation options to other company facilities and farms as well as retention incentives to ensure business continuity until early next year,” the company said.
Smithfield also said that it had reached an agreement with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Union of Operating Engineers on shutting the Vernon facility.
“We are grateful to our team members in the Western region for their dedication and invaluable contributions to our mission. We are committed to providing financial and other transition assistance to employees impacted by this difficult decision,” Smithfield Chief Operating Officer Brady Stewart said.
The closure of the company comes as food prices rise nationwide amidst the ongoing baby formula shortage, growing inflation and soaring gas prices. Adding to the threats facing the nation’s food security is a looming worldwide fertilizer shortage, from which the U.S. is not exempt.
“We are deeply concerned about the combined impacts of overlapping crises jeopardizing people’s ability to produce and access foods, pushing millions more into extreme levels of acute food insecurity,” United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Qu Dongyu warned.
“We are in a race against time to help farmers in the most affected countries, including by rapidly increasing potential food production and boosting their resilience in the face of challenges,” Qu said.
