Good Morning
Taiwan Casts Its Lot with Freedom
Taiwan just pushed back against bully China’s threats and elected a pro-Western, pro-sovereignty candidate to be president of the island nation.
William Lai Ching-te, the current Vice President of Taiwan and candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party defeated his rivals from the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). He won the election handily, as by 8 p.m. Taipei time, Lai had garnered 40% of the vote. His closest competitor, Hou Yu-ih, candidate of the KMT and mayor of New Taipei, lagged behind with 33%.
Moreover, Lai’s predecessor, current President Tsai Ing-Wen enjoyed eight years as leader of Taiwan, so it appears the Taiwanese strongly approve of the party’s leadership. The DPP has stood for continued independence and firmness against Chinese aggression.
Needless to say, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party do not approve of the election.
Despite the name “progressive,” don’t confuse the DPP with the far-left, ostensibly Marxist politics seen in the United States. Tim Mak, who writes on Ukraine and Taiwan for his Substack The Counteroffensive with Tim Mak, notes that the DPP is a “newer centrist party.” It favors a pragmatic and non-partisan approach to reform and modernization, as well as greater independence from China.
The Carjacking Dilemma: Keep yourself safe while you’re in your car.
I’m seeing reports that carjackings are on the rise in some cities. This form of robbery depends upon the criminal acting quickly and violently before the victim realizes what is going on or has a chance to respond. Still, carjacking can be defeated if the intended victims…that’s you & me…will study the problem and develop a plan of action.
Remember, I said “quickly and violently”, so let’s give some thought to taking “quickly” out of the mix, and the best way I know to do that is to make it a habit to always have the doors locked and the windows up. We know that window glass is not as sturdy as windshield glass. A window can be busted out much more easily. However, that takes a bit of time, and it is time that we can use to respond to the attack. The key is to make it a habit to roll up the windows and make sure the doors are locked each and every time we use our vehicle.
Another thing to realize is that the vehicle itself may be the best defensive tool at your disposal. The first thought may be to stomp the gas and try to drive off. But have you thought about making the escape by putting the car in reverse? How about driving on the sidewalk? Of course, with any quick, defensive maneuver we want to make every effort to avoid hurting innocents that might be near. I often tell students, “If your car is moving, it’s a defensive tool. If it is sitting still, it’s a coffin.” What can you do with your vehicle to defeat a carjacking? Give it some thought.
If you legally carry a defensive firearm in your car…and I hope that you do…you need to give some thought to how you carry it and how easily it is to get it into action. If you carry in such a way that you have to undo your seat belt to get at it, I would suggest you find another carry method. Crossdraw, shoulder holsters, even ankle holsters, might be worth experimenting with.
In addition, it would be a good idea to practice shooting with only one hand because your other hand may be busy with the steering wheel. Also practice shooting at odd angles because an armed attacker might be shooting at you from positions other than at your driver’s-side window.
And, as always, force yourself to stay alert. If you can see it coming, you have a far better chance of avoiding he trap. If you wait until they’ve got you pinned between two cars, you may have waited too late. In heavy traffic, bad neighborhoods, or when things just don’t feel right, turn off your radio, quit talking on the phone or texting and give your surroundings your full attention.
Carjackers can be defeated and you can get it done.
January 14, 2024
Pfizer Invests Billions in Treatments for Coming ‘Heart Failure Pandemic’
Pfizer is investing billions of dollars in treatments to prepare for a looming “heart failure pandemic.”
The Covid mRNA vaccine maker is making a big investment in treatment for heart failure as cases of myocarditis and sudden cardiac deaths skyrocket.
The pharmaceutical giant recently acquired several companies. This includes a major $6.7 billion cash acquisition of Arena Pharmaceuticals.
Arena Pharmaceuticals is a firm specializing in developing treatments, particularly for heart inflammation conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis.
Pfizer is now predicted to make tens of billions of dollars in profits from the spike in heart failure.
The company is expecting to capitalize on the huge spike in heart failure as sales of its Covid vaccines have now dried up.
The news comes as scientists are now warning that the latest Covid variant could trigger a “heart failure pandemic.”
Research into the new strain known as JN.1, could cause a “global healthcare risk” related to COVID-19.
Scientists claim this strain of the virus could start a “heart failure pandemic.”
Health experts have warned that there is an increase in the chances of potential heart issues for those who catch the disease.
Due to the influx of a new strain JN.1, there has been a spike in Covid cases in several countries.
Scientists are claiming that new strains are responsible for the spike in deadly heart failure that started in 2021.
Increasing Defendant’s Sentence Based on Lawful Gun Possession Is Forbidden
From Nelson v. State, decided today by the Florida Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Judge Jordan Pratt, joined by Judges Eric Eisnaugle and John Harris:
This appeal presents the question whether a trial court may rely on a defendant’s lawful firearm possession in sentencing him. We conclude that it may not. Courts deprive defendants of due process when they rely on uncharged and unproven conduct during sentencing, and this principle holds especially true where the uncharged conduct is the lawful exercise of a constitutional right….
Defendant had been convicted of selling marijuana and related charges. Then,
At the sentencing hearing, the court entertained argument from both Nelson and the State, with Nelson urging the court to impose 36 months, and the State urging the court to impose 87.23 months. During its argument, the State presented two photos of firearms found in Nelson’s home, noting that “a possible murder a couple of months ago that was probably related to the sale of cannabis” had occurred in Citrus County. However, the State did not argue that Nelson himself was in any way connected to the murder, and it conceded that it did not bring any firearm-related charges against him.
After hearing a brief rebuttal argument from Nelson’s counsel, the court announced his sentence. The court applied the discretionary trafficking enhancement and sentenced Nelson to 87.23 months of incarceration on counts 1 and 2 (to run concurrently).
Immediately after pronouncing this sentence, the court stated: “And what hurts you the most, Mr. Nelson, was … the photographs of the guns. They did not charge with those. I did not take that into account; but why you did this, I do not know.” The court then imposed three-year sentences on the remaining felony counts, with the sentences to run concurrently with the concurrent 87.23-month sentences….
Impermissible, the court said:
Trial courts generally enjoy wide discretion in sentencing convicted defendants within the range of sentences established by the Legislature. However, “an exception exists, when the trial court considers constitutionally impermissible factors in imposing a sentence.”
Reliance on constitutionally impermissible factors deprives a defendant of due process and therefore constitutes fundamental error. As relevant here, “[a] trial court’s consideration of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct in sentencing constitutes a due process violation.”
In short, just as “[d]ue process prohibits an individual from being convicted of an uncharged crime,” it also prohibits him from being sentenced for one based on “unsubstantiated allegations.” [The court cites various Florida state precedents throughout this paragraph. -EV]
This basic principle of due process carries no less force when the uncharged conduct is the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. Both the Florida and federal constitutions guarantee the fundamental, preexisting right to keep and bear arms….
At sentencing, the State presented no evidence to establish that Nelson’s possession of firearms within his home contravened the law. The State did not claim that any law prohibited Nelson from possessing firearms at the time of his arrest, much less point to such a law that would pass muster under the Second Amendment. Nor did it charge him with any firearm-related offense.
The State introduced no evidence establishing that Nelson possessed his firearms within the home to further his illicit activities or for any other unlawful purpose. Indeed, at sentencing, the State affirmatively conceded that it had not charged Nelson with armed trafficking, as the firearms were not found near the cannabis. Moreover, Nelson had no prior convictions.
In short, not only did the State decline to charge Nelson with a firearm-related offense; the State failed to argue, much less establish by evidence, that his firearm possession constituted anything other than the lawful exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms “in defense of hearth and home.” …
The court’s statements indicate that it may have relied upon Nelson’s lawful firearm possession in imposing his sentence, and the State has failed to carry its burden to show otherwise. By declaring that “the photographs of the guns” were “[w]hat hurts [Nelson] most,” the court suggested that it weighed Nelson’s lawful firearm possession against him.
At best, the State [in arguing that the court didn’t consider the lawful firearms possession] has shown that the court made two contradictory statements: one that it took the firearm possession into account, and one that it did not. That showing does not suffice. “[W]e cannot ignore the nature and extent of the trial court’s discussion of irrelevant and impermissible factors during the sentencing hearing.”
“Because the court’s comments could reasonably be construed as basing the sentence, at least in part, [on impermissible factors], and because we cannot say that the sentence would have been the same without the court’s impermissible consideration of [that factor],” we must “vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge.”
If due process prohibits a trial court from relying on “uncharged and unproven crimes” when pronouncing a sentence, then, a fortiori, it prohibits a trial court from relying on the lawful exercise of a constitutional right. The State has failed to carry its burden to show that the sentencing court did not rely, at least in part, on Nelson’s lawful exercise of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Accordingly, we vacate Nelson’s sentences, remand these cases for resentencing, and direct the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to reassign the cases to a different judge for the resentencing.
Victoria E. Hatfield O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A.) represents Nelson.
JUST IN: Democrat Governor JB Pritzker is literally now begging "for mercy" to Texas Governor Greg Abbott to stop bussing migrants to his state.
Remarkable.
Abbott is simply giving Pritzker what he asked for considering in 2021, Pritzker signed a bill making Illinois the "most… pic.twitter.com/L7IqPayCZv
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 13, 2024
BARTLESVILLE HOME INTRUDER SHOT AND KILLED
Some neighbors in Bartlesville say they were shocked to hear about a shooting that happened too close to them.
Bartlesville Police say a woman shot and killed a man who broke into her apartment.
Police say the man was 23 years old and that the woman told police she didn’t know him.
Neighbors say the thing that surprised them the most is they didn’t expect something like this to happen in broad daylight when families are getting ready for work and kids ready for school.
Bartlesville Police say a woman called 911 this morning and said someone was breaking into her apartment, then said she’d shot the intruder.
Laci Robertson lives nearby and was getting her kids ready for school. She says one of her kids had walked by just before the shooting.
“With that happening just right here, you never know when a stray bullet or something could go on,” said Robertson. “You know there’s things that happen, but you just don’t really think it’s going to happen so close to home.”
She says it’s scary to think about this kind of crime happening at such a busy time of day. “Because I think, what if in that moment, I’m getting my child out the door for school and somebody just comes right through,” said Robertson. “And in that moment, what do I do?”
Bartlesville Police say the law gives people the right to use deadly force to protect themselves inside their homes.
“It’s very unfortunate, and we’re glad no one else was hurt in the process,” said Captain Daniel Elkins with Bartlesville Police. “The homeowner felt like they had to do what was necessary, and that’s ultimately their choice.”
Robertson says she’s glad the homeowner was able to defend herself, and she hopes that other burglars will think twice about what they’re doing.
“You live in a place, and you think ‘oh, we’re safe here,”‘ said Robertson. “‘It’s fine.’ But the world is just getting more and more crazy every day.”
Bartlesville Police say they interviewed the woman and then released her.
It will be up to the District Attorney to decide whether charges will be filed.
American Refugees: The Untold Story of the Mass Migration from Blue to Red States.
“Roger Simon is among the many refugees fleeing blue state neoliberalism, and he’s written the best account of our generation’s greatest migration.”
–Tucker Carlson, fired Fox News host
“As a citizen of Tennessee, I can attest to the fact that there is a great migration happening from blue to red states. When people have had enough tyranny, they search for freedom elsewhere. This book captures a pivotal moment in time for our nation.”
–John Rich, country music superstar and owner of Redneck Riviera Brand
“Roger’s analysis in American Refugees provides great evidence that America isn’t in some inevitable national decline, we’re just young. We’re going through our own version of adolescence as a nation.”
–Vivek Ramaswamy, Republican Presidential Candidate
A net exodus of Americans from blue to red states has been in progress for several years now. This is largely a southbound movement, and perhaps some migrants are “running from the cold up in New England,” as the song goes. But mostly they are leaving states that are too far gone into woke socialism to recover anytime soon—in favor of states with more conservative governance.
The conventional wisdom, or fear, among red state locals is that these newcomers, despite having “voted with their feet,” will continue to vote for the same policies that ruined the states from which they are fleeing. Roger Simon argues that the reverse may be more accurate: blue-to-red migrants tend to be serious constitutional conservatives, and they might be the cavalry that rescues the red states from their own problems.
With the possible exception of Florida, the red states, too, are in trouble. Like California, long-term one-party rule has corrupted them, but in a different way. Their political leaders have become disconnected from the conservative values of their constituents. Migrants from blue states, however, are likely to be highly invested in saving the red states into which they are moving.
American Refugees is the story of how a culture clash precipitated a great blue state exodus, and what it means for the rest of America. Focusing particularly on Tennessee, Simon contends that only the red states can preserve the constitutional republic envisioned by the Founders. Only they can save America for our children and grandchildren. The struggle will be great, but the story will ultimately have a happy ending.
The Drunk-Driver Detection Tech That Could Soon Take Over Your Car.
Your car may soon be tasked with determining whether you’re sober enough to drive—but how? As we explained recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law on November 15, 2023 gave NHTSA a year to gin up a standard compelling new vehicles to either “passively monitor the performance of a driver” to detect if they are impaired, or “passively and accurately detect” whether the driver’s blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, and then “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Said standard could go into effect as soon as 2026. At CES 2024—held within the 60-day public comment period for this standard—the Tier-I supplier community showed off some tech aimed at fulfilling the sensing aspect of this proposed drunk driver detection standard.
Blood alcohol level is the gold standard, but the “passively” requirement rules out blowing into a tube. Walking a straight line, reciting the alphabet backwards, and other road-side sobriety test methods are equally impractical. But the eye test checking for nystagmus seems reasonably practical, so several suppliers are focusing efforts on this approach. That’s where an officer asks the subject to follow their finger moving left to right without turning their heads and checks for jerking or bouncing eye movements shortly before the eyes reach a 45-degree angle. It’s still anybody’s guess how best to detect cannabis use/misuse.
Bruen Strikes Again: Ban on Guns in Post Offices Tossed Out, Ruled Unconstitutional
Thanks to a decision by a federal judge in Florida on Friday, American citizens who are legally carrying concealed sidearms can no longer be barred from carrying inside a United States Post Office — buildings that are a quasi-part of the federal government and, in effect, the property of the American people.
A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump in Tampa, reached that conclusion in dismissing part of an indictment charging a postal worker with illegally possessing a gun in a federal facility.
If there is anywhere, honestly, that the Bill of Rights applies, it should be in federal buildings and federal installations. Oh, there’s an argument to be made for barring carry in the Capitol, the White House, in courthouses, and so on – but those are places that are already secured by armed law enforcement (when they aren’t throwing the doors open for “insurrectionists.”) The post offices, not so much. Most post office buildings are pretty small, often crowded, and until now, “gun-free” zones. In other words, target-rich environments for would-be mass shooters.
This ruling is another victory for pro-Second Amendment activists, and once more, we have NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to thank for it.
Mizelle said that charge violated Emmanuel Ayala’s right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, saying “a blanket restriction on firearms possession in post offices is incongruent with the American tradition of firearms regulation.”
She declined to dismiss a separate charge for forcibly resisting arrest. Ayala’s lawyer and a U.S. Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.
The decision marked the latest court decision declaring a gun restriction unconstitutional following the conservative-majority Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Things in the last year or two sure seem to be swinging in favor of the Second Amendment, although the pro-gun community should not take any time to rest on its laurels.
Now that this ruling is in place – assuming it goes nationwide and survives any possible appeal to the Supreme Court – it would be interesting to see it as a precedential springboard into other federal facilities, such as (especially) military bases. Military bases in particular should be removed from the federal “gun-free zone” list; military members are in the profession of arms, and they are charged with enormous responsibility. It’s common to have an 18-year-old soldier, when on duty, handling and firing a weapon as formidable as a .50 caliber machine gun, and yet is prohibited from possessing a personal firearm on base. That makes little sense; in light of several publicized incidents on military bases in recent years, it would make more sense to have every officer and non-commissioned officer issued a sidearm to be carried loaded at all times when in uniform.
Post offices, granted, are a different kettle of fish. But now, at least, this decision recognizes that the Second Amendment rights of the citizenry are not negated by some bureaucrat mandating that every such building be a free-fire zone for would-be mass shooters. Self-defense is a fundamental human right, and now that right has been confirmed yet again.
SCOTUS denies one appeal of assault weapons ban while another waits in the wings
SPRINGFIELD – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied one request to review the Illinois assault weapon ban, but many believe the court is more likely to take up another challenge to the law later this year.
The high court turned down a request by Republican State Rep. Dan Caulkins, of Decatur, to hear an appeal of the case he lost before the Illinois Supreme Court in August.
In his appeal, Caulkins argued that he was denied a fair hearing at the state supreme court because two of the state justices had received large campaign contributions from Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, who signed the assault weapon ban into law.
Caulkins also claimed the law is unconstitutional because it allows some people to keep their assault weapons if they acquired those guns before the ban took effect.
The justices at the U.S. Supreme Court gave no reason for declining to hear Caulkins’ appeal. But many people expect the court to take up a separate challenge to the law from the National Association for Gun Rights, which argues more broadly that the ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the gun rights group in November. The group is expected to file its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several weeks.
Bill Gates: AI Will Save ‘Democracy,’ Make ‘Humans Get Along With Each Other’ & ‘Be Less Polarized’
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has suggested that he hopes artificial intelligence (AI) will dictate how “humans” behave toward one another.
According to Gates, powerful AI technology will “help” society to “be less polarized.” Gates believes allowing the human race to have different opinions regarding politics and society is a “super-bad thing” because it “breaks democracy.”
In a Thursday podcast discussion with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Gates said that AI can fix these alleged problems by making “humans” “get along with each other.”
Gates also expressed his vision of how AI could lead to increased world peace and social cohesion in an ideal world in the episode of “Unconfuse Me with Bill Gates” posted to GatesNotes, the billionaire’s blog website.
Microsoft is the largest backer of OpenAI, which makes ChatGPT.
On Thursday, Microsoft briefly usurped Apple to become the world’s biggest company by market value. The company’s soaring value is due to the boom in artificial intelligence, which has given a massive boost to Microsoft.
The software company’s shares climbed around 1 percent in early trading on Thursday to take its market value to $2.87tn, just ahead of the iPhone maker, whose shares fell by almost 1 percent.
Both Microsoft and OpenAI, along with their main figureheads, have been involved in AI regulatory talks with the White House, senators, and world leaders. “I do think AI, in the best case, can help us with some hard problems,” Gates stated. “Including polarization because potentially that breaks democracy and that would be a super-bad thing.”
During the podcast, Gates and Altman also discussed the potential for AI to establish world peace.
“Whether AI can help us go to war less, be less polarized; you’d think as you drive intelligence, and not being polarized kind of is common sense, and not having war is common sense, but I do think a lot of people would be skeptical,” Gates said. “I’d love to have people working on the hardest human problems, like whether we get along with each other. I think that would be extremely positive if we thought the AI could contribute to humans getting along with each other.”
“I believe that it will surprise us on the upside there,” Altman responded. “The technology will surprise us with how much it can do. We’ve got to find out and see, but I’m very optimistic. I agree with you, what a contribution that would be.”
LISTEN:
INDIANA LAWMAKER LOOKS TO END GUN CONTROL’S MANIPULATIONS OF COURTS
If one Indiana lawmaker is successful, the abuse of the legal system by gun control advocates in Gary, Ind., might finally end after nearly a quarter century of costly litigation.
Indiana Republican state Rep. Chris Jeter introduced House Bill 1235, legislation that “provides that only the state of Indiana may bring or maintain an action by or on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer concerning certain matters.” The bill “prohibits a political subdivision from otherwise independently bringing or maintaining such an action.”
This is legislation that might finally put an end to a series of moves to manipulate the courts into keeping alive a lawsuit filed in August of 1999 by the City of Gary, Ind., against members of the firearm industry claiming their lawful sales constitute a “public nuisance.”
The City of Gary, Ind., first filed their claims in 1999, as part of a coordinated effort by 40 big city mayors who conspired together through the U.S. Conference of Mayors with gun control activist from Brady United (formerly known as the Brady Center), lawyers and trial lawyers.
All these municipal lawsuits have either been dismissed by the courts, e.g., Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Fransico, Detroit and St. Louis, or simply dropped by several cities, e.g., Boston, Cincinnati and Camden.. Many of these municipal lawsuits were dismissed based on state preemption laws enacted between the 1999 to 2001 time period upon which H.B. 1235 is modeled. Like H.B. 1235, these laws – that have been upheld by the courts – reserve to the state the exclusive authority to sue members of the industry except that they allow for breach of warranty and related claims for firearms a political subdivision purchased.