Home Blog Page 3537

Hyatt buys Apple Leisure Group and its 100 hotels for $2.7 billion

Hyatt Hotels (NYSE: H) agreed to buy resort operator Apple Leisure Group from KKR and KSL Capital Partners for $2.7 billion in cash.

Why it matters: The vacation travel market remains optimistic about future growth, despite the resurgent coronavirus pandemic.

Details: Pennsylvania-based ALG operates around 100 hotels, most of which are all-inclusive luxury resorts in the Americas and Europe. It was acquired by KKR and KSL in 2017 from Bain Capital for an undisclosed amount.

The bottom line: “The deal would bolster [Hyatt’s] already considerable resort-management portfolio and give it one of the biggest U.S. providers of charter flights and vacation packages for travel to Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and the Caribbean. It also would accelerate Hyatt’s transformation, long under way, to a more asset-light business model, focusing on generating an ongoing stream of steady and predictable fees.” — Miriam Gottfried, WSJ

Wayne Root: If Trump was President, Not One Democrat in America Would be Vaxxed

This is madness. Forced vaccination with an experimental “for emergency use only” shot that has directly led to death and injury for over 500,000 Americans. Is this really happening? Are you sure this isn’t 1938 Nazi Germany? Or a communist country that provides no civil or human rights to its citizens? Because this can’t be America.

That figure of over 500,000 deaths, serious injuries and adverse effects directly from the Covid vaccine is not from me…it’s not from some wild unreliable Internet rumor…it comes from the US government and CDC-connected vaccine adverse event reporting system called VAERS.

Its more deaths and injuries than all the vaccines in the past three decades combined. By a mile. By the way, throughout history VAERS has always proven to under-report deaths and injuries by a wide margin.

In the EU, the same vaccine reporting system reports over 20,000 dead and over two million injured by the vaccine.

But the media has blacked-out the deaths and crippling injuries from the vaccine like it’s an image of underage sex on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Facts that destroy the government agenda scare the media to death.

What if all of this was happening and Trump was President, serving his second term? The exact same vaccine, the exact same results. Just imagine with me.

What if Trump was president and government swore the vaccine would prevent Covid. But when the vaccinated started getting sick, the goal post was changed 180 degrees. Suddenly everyone admits the vaccinated are getting Covid and they can spread it too. Suddenly their viral load is as high as the unvaccinated. Suddenly the vaccine isn’t effective against “variants.” Suddenly its only use is preventing hospitalizations. Talk about three card monte.

But does the vaccine actually prevent hospitalizations? In Israel, doctors report as many as 95% of the hospitalized are vaccinated. If Trump was president, would anyone be taking the vaccine anymore after hearing those numbers? Would any Democrat? Would any black American?

How about closer to home. In Massachusetts, there are 9,969 “breakthrough cases” of the vaccinated with Covid and over 100 vaccinated are dead of Covid. That’s reported by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

But those are just Covid deaths among the vaccinated. That has nothing to do with the deaths and serious injuries directly from the Covid vaccine.

If Trump was president, the media would be reporting those numbers in gigantic headlines and calling “Trump’s vaccine” a “Frankenstein monster.” They’d be accusing Trump of murder. They’d be calling him “Hitler.”

Not one Democrat in America would be taking this vaccine.

There would be BLM riots as black Americans accused Trump of racism and genocide. The ACLU would be suing in every city, county and state in America. They’d call forced vaccinations under Trump “the civil rights issue of our lifetime.” And the children? Are you aware John Hopkins Medical School (the most respected in the world) just did a study of 45,000 American kids with Covid and found 0 deaths among healthy children. 0 as in zero. Only a handful of children in all of America died from Covid, and John Hopkins reports all of them had childhood cancer.

So, if Trump was president and the government demanded every school child be masked and vaccinated with a dangerous and sometimes deadly experimental vaccine, even though there was 0 risk of death from this flu bug, what would liberals say? How about feminist mothers?

You don’t have to guess. I know. Liberal mothers across America would say “Trump wants to murder our children.” But most importantly, looking at the VAERS numbers showing thousands dead and over 500,000 injured, many seriously, many crippled for life, directly from this experimental jab. If Trump was president, doctors and medical experts would be demanding an immediate suspension of this vaccine program. The media would be touting “Trump vaccine deaths” on the front page.

If Trump was president, no Democrat would take the jab. Would anyone be calling for their freedoms to be taken away, or their lives to be destroyed? What if Trump wanted to put Democrats on a “No Fly List”?

This is madness and insanity. This is the definition of intolerance. This is something I’d expect in Nazi Germany or a communist dictatorship. This is an India-like caste system for 90 million Americans who don’t want the vaccine.

But Trump isn’t president. So, everything happening is hunky dory. Just move along, there’s nothing to see here.

And anyone who disagrees can be censored, banned, demonized, fired, bankrupted, and sent to prison, or re- education camp.

This is what the end of America looks like.

Wayne Allyn Root is known as “the Conservative Warrior.” Wayne is the author of the new #1 national bestselling book, “TRUMP RULES.” Wayne is a CEO, entrepreneur and host of the nationally-syndicated “Wayne Allyn Root: Raw & Unfiltered” on USA Radio Network, daily from 6 PM to 9 PM EST and the “WAR RAW” podcast. Visit ROOTforAmerica.com, or listen live at http://usaradio.com/wayne-allyn-root/ or “on demand” 24/7 at iHeartRadio.com.

Trump Calls on Biden to ‘Resign’

(The Tennessee Star) Former President Donald Trump called on President Joe Biden Sunday evening to resign over a number of policy outcomes, foremost among them Afghanistan’s looming fall to the Taliban after the withdrawal of American troops.

The former president also chided the current commander-in-chief over his management of the U.S.-Mexico border where enforcement personnel encounter over 200,000 illegal entrants each month. Biden also received his predecessor’s reprehension for ending the Keystone XL Pipeline project and making other decisions detrimental to domestic energy production and the U.S. economy generally.

“It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan, along with the tremendous surge in COVID, the Border catastrophe, the destruction of energy independence, and our crippled economy,” the former president said in a statement. “It shouldn’t be a big deal, because he wasn’t elected legitimately in the first place!”

Last month, Biden announced that all American troops would leave Afghanistan by the end of August. Then, on Sunday, the Taliban entered the capital city of Kabul, the American Embassy was evacuated, and the president of Afghanistan fled the country. Over the past week, the cities of Kandahar, Herat and Kunduz have fallen to the Taliban. The president announced this weekend that the U.S. would send thousands of troops back to Afghanistan.

On Sunday, the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan sent out a security alert saying, “The security situation in Kabul is changing quickly including at the airport. There are reports of the airport taking fire; therefore we are instructing U.S. citizens to shelter in place.”

After former President Trump’s statement calling for Biden’s resignation was released, Rep. Mark Green (R-TN-7) told The Star News Network, “President Biden has proven his incompetence and inability to keep the American people safe.”

Rep. Green issued the following statement to The Star News Network late Sunday on the fall of Afghanistan:

From the dissolved southern border to the despicable way this withdrawal was executed, President Biden has proven his incompetence and inability to keep the American people safe. He has completely failed as Commander in Chief.

“I’m worried about a number of Afghans who helped us when I served there,” one former American military contractor who served in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011 told The Star News Network on Sunday.

“I’m worried about their families as well, because President Biden has abandoned them and left them to the mercy of the Taliban. The Taliban has no mercy for its enemies. I am very worried that mass executions of those who helped us for many years are about to take place,” the former contractor said.

Why Gavin Newsom Faces a Recall Election in California

In 2019, still settling into his new home in the state’s creepy, gothic governor’s mansion, Gavin Newsom told an Axios interviewer, “California is what America is going to look like.” Then, perhaps reflecting on his Hollywood benefactors, he added for emphasis, “California is America’s coming attraction.”

California has always aspired to be a shining city-state on a hill. But few Californians expected that the source of the hilltop glow, the buttery radiance emanating as if from a Thomas Kinkade (“Painter of Light”) painting, would be Governor Newsom’s — and the state’s — spectacular and deadly spontaneous combustion.

Mind If We Smoke?
I write as four Northern California counties are consumed in actual hellish fire, fire that transforms forests and communities into smoke and ash that rise over the state’s eastern border and stream across Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and the Midwest, emitting more unlocked carbon than all the carbon released annually by all the gasoline-powered vehicles registered in California.

“Summer after summer, California, a global leader in battling air pollution from vehicles, sends giant clouds of haze filled with health-damaging particles across the country,” the New York Times reports. Thanks to California, schools in western states have closed, and masks, only yesterday a requirement in the battle to stop COVID, are finding new life in the battle against smoke from the Golden State.

California is a menace to society. It’s not just our mismanaged forests. It’s a catalogue of state failures stretching back decades.

Now, searching for someone to blame — anyone but ourselves — we Californians have settled on a kind of death match between Gavin Newsom and the grassroots activists who organized a long-shot effort to recall him. On September 14, we’ll wrap up a month of Election Days to determine whether Newsom stays in the aforementioned haunted house. Whether he does or he doesn’t, it’s a certainty that California voters will not have learned anything like a “lesson.” On September 15, whatever the outcome, the inmates will still be running the asylum.

Just a few weeks ago, polls showed the governor winning easily. Now those polls suggest a coin toss. What has happened betweentimes is a summer of COVID numbers ticking up. Teachers’-union leaders are whispering that the uptick ought to trigger a return to distance-learning schemes that helped move even Democrats to back the recall.

And then, of course, there’s fire.

“But here’s the bottom line about those polls,” says Jon Fleischman, a longtime Sacramento observer and conservative political consultant. “Everybody’s guessing. Turnout is everything, and no one — no one — knows what the turnout will be.” One thing’s for sure, Fleischman adds: “These [poll] results clearly help Newsom raise cash.”

Terrified by the new polls, liberal donors have stampeded to the governor’s side. The latest reports show Newsom’s campaign with a 200-to-one advertising-spending advantage over the recall campaign itself: $5.9 million to $27,500 in July alone. One of the ads purchased with that money features Elizabeth Warren’s sepulchral mug in a video denouncing the recall effort as uniquely “Republican” or, worse, Trump-adjacent.

Warren couldn’t spare even one of her 30 seconds to praise Newsom, nor did she apparently consider the worrisome optics in her message: Newsom’s campaign fundraising so far depends almost entirely on the state’s billionaires and leaders of the billion-dollar government unions — precisely the sort of “lobbyists and billionaires” who Warren has said “try to buy off politicians during elections.” As reported by the Orange County Register, the donations include a total of $6.25 million from Reed Hastings, head of Netflix; George Marcus of real-estate fame; Connie Ballmer, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers; and hedge-fund investors James Simons, Liz Simons (daughter of James), and Mark Heising (husband of Liz). And they include the state’s prison-guards’ union ($1.75 million) and the California Teachers Association ($1.8 million). Consider it a clear symptom of poll-induced panic on the left that the Service Employees International Union has written checks to Newsom totaling a remarkable $5.5 million.

It almost never pays to examine campaign propaganda too closely — it’s like sending the late, great L.A. food critic Jonathan Gold to sample the Hooters lunch menu — but Warren’s pitch reveals the Newsom campaign’s work to link the recall to Donald Trump. So far, the former president’s most notable contribution to the recall has been his unprecedented silence. Nevertheless, says Warren, the connection is clear: “We’ve seen Trump Republicans across the country, attacking election results and the right to vote. Now they’re coming to grab power in California, abusing the recall process and costing taxpayers millions.”

Warren may hate California’s recall process — many conservatives do, too — but it’s been in the state constitution for 110 years, and the only “abuse” has been the governor’s. Like a British prime minister calling a snap election, Newsom bet that speeding up the election would deprive recall supporters — primarily grassroots activists — of time they need to raise cash for the campaign against him. California secretary of state Shirley Weber (whom Newsom appointed to replace Alex Padilla, whom he had appointed to replace Kamala Harris) agreed to the September 14 filing. If that seems autocratic, Newsom next leveraged emergency powers he granted himself during the COVID pandemic and ordered ballots mailed to all registered California voters.

As for Warren’s complaint about the recall’s cost — projected to be about $215 million — well, that’s a fraction of the cost of the many blunders for which Newsom could be recalled.

The popular notion is that the recall is driven by Republicans upset about the governor’s ham-fisted COVID response, including (maybe especially) his decision to attend a pandemic-year birthday party with lobbyists, unmasked, at the fabulous restaurant French Laundry. That one had even his most liberal admirers gasping. “Gavin Newsom: What were you thinking?” a New York Times opinion writer asked. As if in response, a CNN opinion writer offered, “Gavin Newsom’s French Laundry scandal is no reason to toss him out.”

But the reasons to toss him out are legion, and each is more costly than an expensive recall. A foul-up at the state’s Employment Development Division sent $31 billion to fraudulent applicants, including inmates in the state’s prison system. During COVID, a CapRadio investigation found “at least a half-dozen companies that made substantial contributions to Newsom and received no-bid contracts from the state, influential appointments, or other opportunities related to the state’s pandemic response”: “The contributions range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The contracts range from $2 million to over $1 billion — including the one awarded to Blue Shield for vaccine distribution . . . worth up to $15 million.” Then there’s Newsom’s insistence on building a high-speed rail system in which the greatest feature is indeed speed, but not of the trains: The project cost has moved with mind-boggling velocity from $33 billion in 2008 to a projected $100 billion today. It still goes from nowhere to nowhere. In July, Newsom bailed out the Biden administration’s immigration catastrophe at the state’s border with Mexico, signing into law an expansion of state health insurance to cover 235,000 undocumented migrants over 50 years of age. There was much focus on the cost of health insurance to those migrants, but almost none on the cost to the state’s taxpayers.

Some costs are harder to calculate, such as Newsom’s reliance on financial support from the state’s teachers’ unions. In 2019, he signed into law a series of bills written by the California Teachers Association, carried by a former CTA executive-turned-legislator, and designed to kill public charter schools. In California, if you’re poor and trapped in a failing school, a charter — publicly funded but independently managed and typically non-union — may be your only alternative. How do you measure the cost of protecting a failed state monopoly in K–12 education? Similarly, his pandemic-motivated shutdown of the state’s schools, driven by teachers’-union leaders and activists, hurt California’s poorest most grievously.

Remember Greenville
Not wishing to diminish anything else in this résumé of failure, let’s return to wildfires.

California’s wildfires illuminate — though they have not yet burned — everything rotten in the state’s progressive politics. Two summers ago, Newsom asserted that massive wildfires had been caused by the failure of Pacific Gas & Electric to maintain its equipment.

“It’s about dog-eat-dog capitalism meeting climate change. It’s about corporate greed meeting climate change,” he roared.

The fact is that state officials run California’s utilities via the state’s powerful Public Utilities Commission. The PUC board comprises political appointees to whom you would not entrust a small box of matches, and yet the PUC determines the management of Pacific Gas & Electric in such exacting detail that the utility hardly qualifies as a private enterprise. For years, the PUC has steered California’s utilities away from fire safety and toward a menu of green initiatives, lucrative but wasteful overbuilding, and the vulnerable, long-distance transmission of electricity from states where it’s easier to build plants and still legal to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity.

The political appointees at the PUC have merged with environmentalists who’ve made it impossible to manage state and national forests. Seemingly taking their science cues from the Na’vi humanoids of Pandora (thanks, James Cameron!), these forest advocates see every tree as a conscious being, every stick-frame house as something like a murder scene. They’ve killed the sawmills that once employed tens of thousands. They’ve shut down fire-access roads. The result is densely packed tinder piling up beneath a network of long-distance interstate high-power transmission lines.

This highly political regulatory environment — not some unhinged, slick-haired, coke-snorting Wall Street madman — is the real source of our troubles.

Critics know this. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have concluded that California’s diabolical fire seasons are largely the result of years of environmentalist excess on the part of state regulators, that “protecting our forests” actually means storing up kindling for a future conflagration. Before the onset of this year’s fire season, perhaps hearing that call and deciding to genuflect, Newsom announced that his executive order had carved out fuel breaks and prescribed burns on 90,000 acres. But in June, a public-radio reporter discovered that “the state’s own data show the actual number [of acres treated] is 11,399.” Newsom had overstated his impact by 690 percent.

But even 90,000 acres was a chump’s con. As I write this, the Dixie Fire has been burning through four Northern California counties for a month, incinerating 490,000 acres, or 765 square miles. Still just 21 percent contained, it is already the second-largest wildfire in California history, and state fire officials say they no longer know when they’ll stop it.

Somewhere in those numbers was the 5,120-acre town of Greenville, a gold-rush-era mountain town consumed by fire in half an hour on August 4. Few wildfire stories from the summer of 2021 can compete with the vivid terror of its 1,100 residents, who have fled, and the absurdity of the governor’s stomping through its remains three days later for obliging reporters. In a tweet featuring a photo of his glamorous self against the wreckage, the governor said, “Greenville — though this moment may seem insurmountable, we’ll be there to help you rebuild.”

Three days earlier, on the day Greenville burned down, four candidates vying to replace Newsom debated his failures at the Nixon Library in Orange County. Newsom chose counter-programming — a press conference on the edge of a burn scar from the 2020 August Complex Fire, for the moment the largest fire in state history. The state’s fire authority helpfully provided the backdrop, one of its highly polished institutional-green trucks. Newsom took the mic and then handed it to U.S. secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack.

Vilsack was there to represent the transition in California’s relationship with Washington, D.C. While Trump was in office, California sued the federal government more than 100 times; Newsom ridiculed the president’s claim that California’s forest mismanagement, not climate change, is the primary cause of its wildfires. But with Joe Biden in the White House, Vilsack could say what we know to be true — what Trump himself had said only a year ago: “We need more boots on the ground. We need to do more forest management to reduce the risk of fire.”

Of course, Vilsack was also there to demand more money for the men and women in those boots, members of the state’s powerful and left-leaning firefighters’ union. More significantly, he was there to plug the Biden administration’s massive, trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. Newsom made the requisite promises: Despite his provable lies about his past efforts in this area — misrepresentations he says he regrets, but which we cannot forget — Newsom assured us that wise practices are forthcoming.

Fade to Blackout
They can’t come soon enough. Along with summer heat and fires come blackouts — and blackouts, as Newsom knows, drove Gray Davis from the governor’s mansion in 2003, in the state’s only other recall.

On July 8, as temperatures spiked throughout the Canadian and American West, the PUC begged state residents to cut back on electricity consumption. But by then, officials had already concluded that voluntary compliance would not be enough to rescue the state from the PUC’s green-energy policies. Then, in an act the Los Angeles Times called “a cruel twist of the climate era” (but which you and I might call “irony”), Newsom issued an emergency proclamation that ordered state regulators to crank up every available source of power generation, including those that run on fossil fuels.

When Hernán Cortés landed in Mexico in 1519, he ordered his men to burn their ships, barring any retreat in the face of what terrors might befall them during their conquest. Similarly, Newsom and Jerry Brown before him have systematically dismantled electricity generation from fossil fuels. That has left the state reliant on the unreliable — electricity from the sun and wind, or from states where clean-air politics haven’t yet supplanted reality.

But the heat wave threatened to kill those out-of-state sources even as it drove up energy demand in California. And the sun, she refused to shine at night. So, Newsom reversed course. He commanded cargo ships tied up in the state’s major ports to continue running their diesel engines rather than plug into dockside electricity hookups. More spectacularly, the governor’s order directed regulators to switch on the very gas-fired power generators the governor’s team had scheduled for permanent shutdown a year ago. Agency officials broke the emergency glass and flipped the switches. California was saved by oil, natural gas, and coal.

You don’t have to be a Republican or even a conservative to see why thousands of Californians volunteered to gather more than 1.5 million signatures to qualify this recall for the ballot. You don’t have to like Donald Trump to get why millions more will vote to remove the governor. You don’t even have to like the idea of recalls. But when you think about what Gavin Newsom has cost ordinary Californians — never mind California’s neighbors — you can understand.

Here’s how to tell employer you can’t take a COVID shot

There are major moral and ethical questions that are linked to the experimental COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed in the United States, and are being pushed on the population.

That hasn’t discouraged some government operations and many private corporations from ignoring them, and threatening under penalty of job loss that workers must take the shots.

But now consumers and employees can fight back.

The Rutherford Institute has posted online a fact sheet on the rights of individuals to refuse such orders, as well as a sample letter to use to inform employers that they cannot have their way.

“For good or bad, COVID-19 has changed the way we navigate the world and the way in which ‘we the people’ exercise our rights. As a result, we find ourselves grappling with issues that touch on deep-seated moral, political, religious and personal questions for which there may be no clear-cut answers,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“One thing is clear, however: while the courts may defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights. The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to nullify them, but it cannot erase them,” he explained.

One situation involves those with medical conditions, as the Americans with Disabilities Act protects those individuals.

And although legal protections against threats and punishment for not accepting a shot “are limited,” the Institute explains there are rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That insists that employers provide religious accommodations to those who have sincere religious beliefs against receiving vaccinations.

“Title VII further defines religion broadly to include not only beliefs, but also religious practices and observances. As a result, the federal employment discrimination law forbids discharging an employee because the employee chooses to engage in certain conduct, or not engage in certain conduct, that is a part of the employee’s religious beliefs and practices, and holds that someone cannot be discriminated against by their employer based on their religion unless the employer cannot reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business,” the institute reported.

“Although there have been very few cases that have dealt specifically with Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination based on religion in the context of religious objections to vaccines mandated by the employer, it appears established that if an employee holds sincerely held religious beliefs in opposition to receiving a vaccination, an employer that has a rule requiring that vaccination must reasonably accommodate the employee’s beliefs.”

The first step is a notice, the institute said.

In the fact sheet Whitehead assembled, it is explained that Supreme Court multiple times as discussed the “right of bodily integrity as grounds for refusing to allow the police to require drunk driving arrestees to submit to blood extractions.”

In fact, the court has found that “conduct ‘involve[s] a compelled physical intrusion beneath [the arrestee’]s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation.
Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual’s ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.'”

And the advisory page noted, “Whether such a claim of bodily integrity would ultimately prevail in the face of compelled or forced vaccinations would depend on the courts’ balancing of the individual interest versus the state interest. For example, the court has held that the forced blood draw from a drunk driving suspect was not unreasonable, because blood draws ‘are commonplace in these days of periodic physical examination, and experience with them teaches that the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and that, for most people, the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain.'”

One previous ruling allowed forced vaccinations, back in 1905, but even that allowed exemptions for medical reasons. All 50 states now require children to get diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, rubella, and varicella vaccinations, but also offer a variety of exemptions.

But the fact sheet noted, “There is no indication that the courts have upheld the forced administration of vaccines upon a person.”

“It appears established that if an employee holds sincerely held religious beliefs in opposition to receiving a vaccination, an employer that has a rule requiring that vaccination must reasonably accommodate the employee’s beliefs.”

The fact sheet explains it is important to notify an employer and provide written documentation of the religious beliefs that would be violated under a vaccine mandate.

As the Supreme Court has held, “the guarantee of free exercise [of religion] is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect,” the fact sheet explained.

Paxton Faults Record Border Migration On COVID Rise In Texas

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sunday said COVID-19 numbers are spiking because of the record migrant surge at the border.

In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Paxton said President Joe Biden’s criticism of the alarming COVID caseload in the state is pointless since he has no credibility.

“There’s no doubt our [COVID-19] numbers are going up because of the border and what’s going on down there,” he said. “I talked to Dallas police officers who told me that they’ve seen buses come in at night and be completely emptied and the people just disappear.”

But, he added, the president’s criticism “doesn’t have any credibility left with me.”

“He’s lecturing us, Texas and Florida, and Americans on vaccines and on masks and yet he’s allowing illegal immigration with COVID coming across our border every day by the thousands,” he charged.

“And so it’s hard for me to believe in what he’s saying when he is openly allowing people to cross the borders and then go all around the country with COVID.”

Paxton also blasted the state Democrats’ protest of proposed new election laws, calling their flight out of state to rob the legislature of a quorum on the vote “ridiculous.”

“Democrats protesting and leaving the state, this is a ridiculous way to handle democracy,” he said. “It’s not a democracy, it’s a minority trying to control the majority.”

He defended the proposed new requirements as “not restrictive.”

“We have one of the most open-voting systems in America with two weeks of early voting and this is merely trying to refine some of the things that happened in the last election that went wrong,” he said. “These people ought to come up and debate and vote for their own constituents and for the people of Texas.”

“It’s one of the most important issues of our time,” he added. “If we can’t make sure that our elections are credible and people trust them… people will stop voting. They’ll stop believing in the system of democracy.”

Supreme Court Blocks New York Eviction Moratorium

Says ban deprives landlords without due process

The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked part of New York state’s COVID-19-related eviction moratorium at the behest of a group of landlords who say they cannot sustain its fiscal toll.

In a brief statement, the High Court said the moratorium appeared to deprive the landlords of their property without due process. The Court’s statement was unsigned and did not include a vote count, as is typical of such matters, but Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan noted their dissent.

The emergency appeal highlighted the ongoing strain landlords face even as much of the nation returns to a pre-pandemic state of affairs. Lawyers for the landlords described them as “small scale property owners” in court filings and emphasized that the moratorium has left them in dire financial straits.

Two of the applicant landlords are Mudan Shi and Feng Zhou, a married couple who rent the single-family house they own on Staten Island. Income from that property helps cover rent for the leased home they occupy with their children and elderly parents. Their Staten Island tenants have not paid rent since 2019 because of a dispute that is not COVID-related. Shi and Zhou can no longer afford their lease. Another landlord, Betty Cohen, is a retiree whose income consists of Social Security benefits and the rent she collects off a single co-op unit in Brooklyn. Cohen’s tenant stopped paying rent in March 2020 and owes her almost $25,000.

Thursday night’s decision will not necessarily result in the eviction of their tenants. It would merely allow them to make a case for eviction to a housing court, which may or may not succeed. Absent that opportunity, lawyers for the landlords argued the moratorium deprives them of their property without due process, a violation of the Constitution. Under the New York scheme, a tenant’s declaration of COVID-related hardships on a state form delayed eviction proceedings until the moratorium expires.

“The owner’s hands are completely tied: Tenants are not required to submit any proof of their claimed hardships, and applicants and other property owners are given no opportunity to present contrary evidence,” the application reads.

For example, landlord Brandie LaCasse owns a single-family house in Rhinebeck, N.Y., occupied by tenants who are withholding rent. The tenants claim they aren’t paying because of a child care hardship. LaCasse and her lawyers have evidence that explanation is untrue, but the moratorium makes the claim unrebuttable. In the meantime, the property is falling into disrepair due to the tenants’ poor stewardship, exacerbating the financial damage, LaCasse’s lawyers wrote in court filings. LaCasse herself is living with an ex-fiancée who wants her to leave.

“I need to leave where I’m currently staying. My ex wants me out of the house, and I don’t really have anywhere to go and I’m trying to get my house back,” she testified at an emergency hearing in June.

The Court credited those arguments in a short statement about the decision.

“This scheme violates the Court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily ‘no man can be a judge in his own case’ consistent with the due process clause,” the order reads.

In dissent, Breyer argued the Court should grant such “drastic relief” only if it was “indisputably clear” that the moratorium is unconstitutional. He also noted it is set to expire on Aug. 31.

“The New York Legislature is responsible for responding to a grave and unpredictable public health crisis. It must combat the spread of a virulent disease, mitigate the financial suffering caused by business closures, and minimize the number of unnecessary evictions,” Breyer wrote.

“The legislature does not enjoy unlimited discretion in formulating that response, but in this case I would not second guess politically accountable officials’ determination of how best to guard and protect the people of New York,” he added.

A 5-4 Court in June refused to suspend the federal eviction moratorium. The New York landlords said their case is different because they have identified the specific and significant monetary harms they have incurred, while the landlords in the June case “made only conclusory reference to general financial harms.”

The practical effect of Thursday night’s decision isn’t clear because the federal moratorium remains in place. And the Court itself noted that New York state has a second law that directs judges to consider COVID-related hardships in eviction proceedings.

Pentagon authorizes sending additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan

The Pentagon has reportedly authorized the deployment of 1,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of troops on the ground to 6,000 as the Taliban continues its advances in the capital city of Kabul.

Reuters reported on Sunday that the additional troops will be drawn from the 82nd Airborne Division, which was already on standby.

The news of additional troops being sent to Afghanistan comes after President Biden announced on Saturday that the U.S. would send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan to assist with evacuating U.S. personnel, and after the Pentagon revealed on Thursday that it was deploying 3,000 more troops to the country to help facilitate the withdrawal of embassy staff.

The Hill reached out to the Pentagon for additional information.

The deployment of troops to Afghanistan comes as the country is facing a rapidly deteriorating security situation, with the Taliban making significant gains in the region.

Chaos broke out in the country overnight on Sunday after the insurgent group entered Kabul. Taliban fighters entered the presidential palace in the capital city, and members of the group’s leadership addressed the media from the throne of power, according to photos published by Al Jazeera.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country as Taliban fighters seized Kabul on Sunday, later writing in a Facebook post that he did so to avoid bloodshed.

The U.S. is now working to pull all its staff from the embassy. The American flag at the compound was lowered on Sunday, marking the final step in the evacuation of staff from the building.

The rapidly evolving situation in Afghanistan comes as the U.S. was nearing completion of its withdrawal process, which President Biden previously said was set to finish at the end of this month.

The Taliban, however, has increased its efforts in recent weeks, capturing a number of key provincial capitals in Afghanistan as protection from U.S. and NATO forces decreased.

Canadians Protest in Streets Against Vaccine Passports

Our Neighbors To The North Stand With American Patriots In Solidarity Saturday In The Pursuit of Freedom.

Freedom protesters marched in the streets of Montreal, Canada on Saturday as worldwide protests appear all over the planet against vaccine passports. The Freedom protesters derived massive numbers, as evidenced by video footage of the streets of Montreal. The freedom protesters are joined in solidarity Saturday by Freedom protesters who stand against vaccine mandates at the Oklahoma City state capitol on Lincoln Boulevard in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Similar Freedom demonstrations continued in London, England, and Paris, France, a historical sister city to Montreal. In Paris, Freedom protesters are actually setting up their own cafe bistros with food and supplies so as to avoid patronizing the restaurants that enforce the vaccine passport.

Rebel News has been covering this peaceful populist uprising, the latest in a series of joyous Freedom protests in the city of Montreal during the era of Coronavirus tyranny.

In Montreal, politicians and activists are clamoring to be seen as supporting the cause of Freedom.

‘Gets It Wrong Every Time’: Trump Says Biden Should Have Followed His ‘Plan’ on Afghanistan

Earlier, the previous US president, Donald Trump, criticized Biden on his Afghanistan policy, as the former wondered out loud whether anyone in the US had begun to miss him in the White House as the Taliban advances in the Central Asian country following the US military’s exit.

Former US President Donald Trump issued a statement on Saturday lambasting the policies of the current administration under President Joe Biden on Afghanistan and remarking that Biden should have followed Trump’s “plan”.

While Trump did not elaborate on what his “plan” actually was, he did suggest that it had “protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban* would never dream of taking our embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America”.

“The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground”, Trump said, adding: “After I took out ISIS*, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power”.

Trump also predicted that it would be a “disgrace” when the Taliban “raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul”. 

“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence”, Trump continued.

The former president’s comments came shortly after Biden took a shot at Trump’s Afghan policies earlier in the day, where he announced an increase in the troop deployment in Afghanistan to 5,000 to aid with the evacuation. According to Biden, his predecessor “left the Taliban in the strongest position militarily since 2001”, imposing a May 2021 deadline on US forces.

“When I became president, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies’ forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country’s civil conflict”, Biden noted, pledging not to pass a war in Afghanistan onto the next US president.

As his presidential term ended in 2020, Trump made a deal with the Taliban to pledge that the US, along with its allies, would reduce troops in the region and lift sanctions against the group, while the militant movement would promise to not allow al-Qaeda* or any other extremist groups to operate in regions under its control.

Trump is not the only one to condemn the 46th president for his moves in Afghanistan, as he has been joined by a choir of conservatives, with some voicing concerns that the Biden policy to withdraw American troops may result in “ISIS 3.0”.