Horse 3516 - The Beatles By The Numbers

 “Data is like garbage. You'd better know what you are going to do with it before you collect it.”

- Mark Twain

 “In God we trust, all others bring data.” 

- W. Edwards Deming

The perpetual maelstrom of chaos that is YouTube, seemingly has no idea what I want to watch next. It has a broad idea that I like motor racing, so it wants to provide with AI generated Motorsport rumour slop; it knows that I like music theory, so it tries to give me saccharine pop garbage; occasionally though it brings me an absolute gem, such as it did here:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzR68Zq4-Rs

The description of this video is that ii is "the entire Beatles album discography but it's just numbers".

The thing is that if you're going to give me a giant string of numbers, then as I work in an accountancy office, then my first inclination is to look at that string of numbers and realise exactly what else you have inadvertently given me. A string of numbers is in fact a data set.

In this case we have a data set which is not random but which is generated from the lyrics of Beatles songs. This means that before we've even begun, we know that the string of numbers is going to exist because it results from a series of contexts. People who are familiar with The Beatles' discography are going to know instantly that "she was just 17", that there are "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", and that "31" is going to be the collar number of a Policeman is the arresting officer of Maxwell, who is a serial killer.

Since I was given this lovely set of data, what else was I going to do but analyse it?

If we take a list of the frequencies of the various numbers, we find that the following results.

1 - 107

2 - 33

3 - 15

4 - 12

5 - 8

6 - 6

7 - 6

8 - 13

9 - 39

10 - 4

12 - 2

17 - 1

20 - 2

31 - 1

50 - 2

64 - 3

90 - 1

909 - 10

1000 - 1

4000 - 1

1000000 - 2

2000000 - 1

The first thing to notice about this is that apart from the strange spike of 9 at the end, that these numbers follow Benford's Law. That is that the first-digit in this set of numerical data, the leading digit is most likely to be small. In this case, it is 1.

In fact as far as the measures of central tendency go, the Mode of this set is 1, and the Median of this set is 2.

Things get weird when you look at the other measure of central tendency - the Mean.

If you take the mean of the whole data set, then you get: 14762.871

This is purely because of just three outliers in the data which are five orders of magnitude larger than the majority of the data set.

If you take out just those three pieces of data and also take out three 1s then the mean drops to just 58.

If you then remove the three and four digits from the data set an then the mean drops to just 5.8.

The two anomalies which change this data set from being a normal data set into whatever this is, are "8 Days a Week" and "Revolution 9"; where one of the songs is making use of hyperbole and the other... is bonkers to the point where I do not know if it even fits the definition of "music".

That is to be expected when most songs written by humans, for humans, talking about their relationship with other humans, is going to classify those humans as special. The "one" in relation to someone, is very obviously going to be talking about a relationship which is intimate and/or romantically entwined. The corollary that if there is the "one" then in a couple a song is going to be talking about us "two".

In fact, so incredibly obvious is it that that songs for humans that describe relationships with other humans, that we should naturally expect that more than half of the data set results from those terms. The numbers 1 and 2 account for 140 of 270 numbers, or 51% of the data.

Also embedded in this data set are the unavoidable certain things in life of Death and Taxes. "1 for you and 19 for me" refers to the marginal rate of taxation of 95% which George Harrison found as a result of being part of the biggest band in the world, and Paul's question of "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?" stares at mortality and the ceaseless foot of time silently stealing swiftly by.

Given that this is The Beatles, I can not help but look at the comment to see one of the commenters, who I believe is a spokesperson for all of us when they said:

"We’re all here for that epic 9 solo"

- Mapoleo (user)

Indeed.

Horse 3516a - The Beatles (numbers set)

1

2

3

4

17

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1000000

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

1

2

4

19

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

19

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

1

20

5

9

10

6

1

1

1

1

3

64

64

64

2

5

1

2

3

4

4000

1000

4

4

1

1

20

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

12

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

50

31

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

1

2

3

10

50

1

2

2

2

2

2000000

1000000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

90

1

909

12

Horse 3515 - Full Of SA Fury, Signifying Nothing

There is a really curious thing which might happen as a result of the South Australia State Election on March 21st next month:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-20/sa-state-election-polls-put-one-nation-ahead-of-liberals/106370280

The Liberal Party will begin South Australia's election campaign with record low support, according to two opinion polls released today.

A Newspoll published in The Australian found just 14 per cent of voters surveyed intended to vote Liberal at next month's state election.

That puts the Liberals well behind One Nation on 24 per cent and Labor on 44 per cent.

Political analyst Kevin Bonham said if the result played out on election day, the Liberal Party would struggle to win a single seat.

"If the Newspoll were to be correct, they could conceivably win no seats at all, or they'd probably win about one seat,"  Dr Bonham said.

"Fourteen per cent of the vote does not get you many seats in a single-seat system."

- via ABC News, 20th Feb 2026

The Newspoll graphic looks like this: 

The South Australian House of Assembly which is the lower house, has a Preferential Voting System just like the one used at Federal Level. The South Australian House of Assembly uses Instant Runoff Voting to determine who wins the seat, and distributes preferences until a candidate has achieved at least 50% + 1 of the votes.

14% of first preferences of itself isn't disqualifying but it does generally mean that to achieve that 50% + 1 of the votes in practically every seat, that the Liberal Party will have to rely on 2nd and 3rd preferences; and with the way that votes generally fall, it is unlikely. What generally tends to happen is that voters will put who they absolutely hate, last. Thus, 2s and 3s end up coming a war for the centre position of whatever the electorate happens to think, and if you're only polling 14% on first preferences, this indicates that you are probably further away from the centre than you think that you are.

This means that with One Nation polling ahead of the Liberal Party, and they themselves being unlikely to win a seat, that the Liberal Party actually face exact electoral wipeout in winning none of the seats at all.

I would suspect that Peter Malinauskas is returned as Premier; with his Labor Government holding a super-majority in the House of Assembly, and possibly also holding a similar position in the upper house.

So dire is the Liberal Party's first preference poll, that Newspoll hasn't even bothered to do a Two=Party Preferred analysis; because a 2PP basis can't meaningfully be achieved if there isn't actually a logical second party. At 24% One Nation might pick up votes from people who hate the Labor Party but they've chosen One Nation as a protest against all majors, then the Liberal Party is likely to be sharing 6s and 7s with Labor - don't cry for me Argentina, the truth is we never liked you? 

Organisations like News 24 (formerly Sky News Australia) have decided to go full-on dropkick mode; by suggesting that the electorate is brainwashed and is being influenced by the "woke media" despite the fact that they are in fact a media organisation whose former proprietor helped found the Liberal Party in the first place. 5AA is already flying the racist banner and has accused Labor of importing voters; which is as idiotic as it sounds because the kinds of voters who they accuse Labor of "importing" are Indian and Chinese migrants who are more likely to vote for a pro-business party. The rhetoric doesn't even have to make sense, so why bother?

I don't know how you can accuse the electorate of being influenced by the "woke media" when you actually own the only newspaper, are politically amenable with the biggest radio group, as well as the commercial television networks. Unless this is yet another bash at the ABC, who to be honest haven't really said very much at all, then this makes no sense at all other than being a piece of rhetoric against an imagined enemy.

With the Liberal Party at Federal Level being in utter disarray and State Parliaments increasingly looking like bloodbaths with vultures picking off the remnants, I think that we are in one of those strange periods of history where conservatism as led by media telling the people what to think, is over as a model.

The reason for this is that the electorate tends to have very long memories and Generations X, Y and now Z, have never ever seen conservative politics work for them. In fact, they've seen conservative politics actively and repeatedly work against them.

It is worth remembering that the Liberal Party peaked in popularity when newspapers more or less dictated what the prevailing view of the day was. The Liberal Party's peak 1st Preference vote, more or less coincides with the peak of newspaper sales of the Herald-Sun, Courier Mail and Daily Telegraph in 1951. News 24 which is part of News Ltd's suite of media assets, plays to ever decreasing numbers; including in places where it is free-to-air.

Now that newspaper sales, Pay-TV subscriptions, and indeed the reach of traditional media has lost its ability to dictate what the electorate thinks, it follows that the electorate no longer thinks what conservative media wants them to. 

If we assume that the Liberal Party suffers absolute electoral wipe-out in the election and then a subsequent existence failure in the new parliaments, the question then arises as to what happens if there is no formal opposition. As Western Australia proves, absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Questions are still put to Cabinet Ministers. People still voice complaints. The actual machinery of parliaments, which existed before the existence and invention of political parties, not only copes, it copes well. 

As for the action of the colour of the political football teams that will inhabit the next parliament, that's also pretty well completely known in South Australia. South Australia which is more than 90% urban by population, tends to have a stronger affinity for local community candidates. In that respect, South Australia acts more like Blacktown City Council which also has no formal Liberal Party representation. Instead, people are appointed because they are able to garner local support. South Australia actually has a long history of local independent candidates; who sometimes break through to Federal politics, as in the case of Nick Xenophon.

With only 14% of the vote, the Liberal Party preferences are likely to flow to Labor because rusted on voters tend to hate One Nation. With less than 30% of the vote, preferences are likely to flow to Labor because rusted on voters tend to hate the Liberal Party. Together, these two trends tend to break open the path for local independent candidates; these people are likely to populate the remaining seats.

With only 47 seats in the South Australian House of Assembly and what appears to be a 16% swing away from the Liberal Party, my Swing Calculator predicts:

Lab 43

IND 4

Lib 0

ONE 0

The Legislative Council reads:

Lab 12

Lib 5

Gre 1

SA-BEST 1

IND 3

That means that Labor would gain a majority in both houses with the asterisk of having to install a President in the Legislative Council but even then, it would require every single non-Labor Councillor to oppose legislation. I honestly have no idea what happens in the above scenario when you have 4 independent members - do you actually even need to choose a formal Opposition Leader? How does that work when there is no formal Opposition?

I just don't know.

Horse 3514 - James Bisonette, James Bisonette, James Bisonette, and James Bisonette.

One of the channels that I like on YouTube is the channel History Matters, which has one of those delightful titles with a double meaning; which could either mean that History does in fact matter, or that these are various matters to do with history.

Here is an example of one such video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjA1MzUuHk8

One thing that regular viewers will notice though, is that at the top of the funding credits is the name James Bissonette. James Bissonette is so frequently mentioned as a special patron at the end of videos for History Matters, that his name itself has become a recognizable meme among the channel's fanbase.

In fact one of the meta running gags in the comments section, is that various events in history were either caused directly by, or were influenced by, or the various actors in the event in history were agents for, none other than James Bisonette.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand at the start of World War 1, the bombing of Pearl Harbour, the Anchluss, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Hannibal's attack over the Alps into Italy with elephants, the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis, the Election of 1800, the creation of the NHS, the invention of the modern sewerage system... all were caused by the hand and/or say so if James Bissonette if you believe the comments section of the various videos.

From what I can gather, the first appearance of James Bissonette was back in 2018, and his influence on world history seems to have only grown from there. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpzhKzlPjrs

Imagine my shock therefore, when out of nowhere, James Bissonette appears in the funding credits for an Objectivity video.

While this would normally come as no shock to anyone, I and indeed many people in the comments section of History Matters videos, thought that we had come to the correct conclusion that James Bissonette was not a real person. He appears to have no other presence on the web whatsoever: no TwitBook, no FaceSky, no Blue Tok, nothing. For someone who consistently appears in the funding credits for educational videos, then you would expect such a person to be a Professor. or a Lecturer, or something, but James Bissonette is conspicuous by his absence. 

In fact, the only other place that you will find James Bissonette is at some kind of AI generated website called Shapes.Inc. which doesn't appear to have any links outwards either.

https://shapes.inc/jamesbisonette

With a warm smile, James Bisonette invites you to explore the realms of history and politics, his passionate tone filling the air as he discusses the intricacies of the world...

- Shapes Inc.

After all of this I am still no closer to finding out who James Bisonette is, or even if they exist. The problem in asking the question of "Who?" is that "who?" is but the form following the function of "what" and 'what' James James Bisonette is might very well the be the same paradox of asking a masked man who he is. Nevertheless, in lieu of the absence of any answers to unmasking who this dramatis persona is, it remains for me to thank the various supporters on Patreon whom I don't have:

James Bisonette, Kelly Moneymaker, Skye Schapelle, Lord Beek, Calling Dr. Fine Dr. Howard. Dr. Fine, Respectable Level of Chaos, Boogily-Woogily, The Pastry Section, and Charles the First.

Horse 3513 - THE PEOPLE v DRACULAS (EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS) [2026] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE PEOPLE v DRACULAS (EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS) [2026] - Judgement

H3513/1

The phrase "Draculas can have any job" is a recurring statement from the Maximum Fun podcast network, specifically popularized by Jesse Thorn on podcasts like Judge John Hodgman and Jordan, Jesse, Go!. 

It stems from Jesse Thorn’s insistent claim that a person's profession does not disqualify them from secretly being a "Dracula." For example, if someone is a mayor or a regular human bartender, Jesse might argue that "Draculas can have any job"; as citation that that person might in fact be a "Dracula". 

However, the statement "Draculas can have any job" contains a verb which has two very different meanings. In Jesse Thorn’s statement, "can" appears to be used in the sense of "being able to" do something. This is a very different sense than the other definition of "be permitted to" do something.

"I can run fast" in the sense that someone has the ability to run quickly, is very different to the sense that "I can run fast" might not be allowed or permitted to run quickly in a crowded or busy place such as a hospital sharps room, or a building site, where doing so might result in considerable injury.

It is therefore incumbent upon this Fake Internet Court to draw up a set of Employment Directions which clarify the actual meaning of the statement that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of permission rather than ability; because whilst it is possible that Draculas might very well be hiding in plain sight and quite competent in their jobs, it might not be appropriate for them to do so.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

According to Bram Stoker's original lore and various adaptations, the character of Dracula himself has held several "professions".

These from the text have included both being a Statesman who conducted many trade missions; as well as being a high ranking Soldier who appears to have led armies and specifically mounted battalions of light horse. This would indicate that the ur-Dracula was a skilled swordsman.

Second to this, Dracula also appears to have been a Scholar of some kind and an Alchemist; though given that Bram Stoker's account dates from 1897 which is well after the realms of Alchemy and formal Chemistry have long since departed and  diverged, it is probably more logical to assume that Dracula was actually a Chemist.

Lastly, within Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula acts as a wealthy nobleman purchasing multiple estates in London. Dracula's property purchases include Carfax Abbey in Purfleet, 347 Piccadilly, 167 Chicksand Street in Mile End, and a house in Jamaica Lane, Bermondsey.

We estimate Dracula's property portfolio as being worth:

£29,000,000 - 347 Piccadilly

£4,600,000 - Carfax Abbey, Purfleet

£710,000 - 167 Chicksand Street, Mile End

£525,000 - Jamaica Lane, Bermondsey

£34,835,000 - TOTAL

However, these various professions that Dracula appears to have had, does not address the core question. The fact that Dracula has had these various professions proves that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of ability; and not in the sense of permission. Having a job in the in the sense of permission, seems to imply either a level of skill, training, and or appropriateness which isn't immediately evident within the proof texts. 

Where I live in the state of New South Wales, the Anti-Discrimination Act (1977) makes it it illegal to treat job applicants or employees unfairly based on "protected attributes" like age, race, sex, disability, religion, or family responsibilities. Specifically whether or not "Draculas can have any job" as a blanket statement as it relates to employment, likely relates to the Key Protected Attributes of Race, Colour, National Extraction, or Social Origin. 

Final Judgement:

This court finds that the general statement that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of permission rather than the sense of ability, should come with some key caveats.

Ironically, this court has found useful to look back at the words of Liberal Party Senator for Victoria, Sarah Henderson, from Sky News Australia's "Outsiders" program on October 5th last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kksc8LICTxw

"It’s all very well to have an independent inquiry, but that’s not good enough, and also the government’s decision just to get the regulator to do the job is like putting Dracula in control of the blood bank... We cannot forget this is an absolute scandal. A number of people have died as a result of the triple zero failures."

- Senator Sarah Henderson, via Sky News Australia, 5th Oct 2025

Admittedly Ms Henderson was trying to make a point about the difficulties in assigning a guardian with a vested interest in consuming or destroying something to oversee it, as in the case in the video. Ms Henderson's point was purely about political point scoring but in the actual specific case of putting "Dracula in control of the blood bank”, it does suggest that there needs to be ethical considerations which need to be thought about.

It is the opinion of this fake internet court that it is inappropriate that Draculas should be allowed to be employed in any front line medical services, or indeed in any occupation where they might be handling human blood or blood products. Other ethical considerations might include an legal and ethical obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of both blood donors and transfusion recipients. 

Then there are various Occupational Health and Safety concerns which specifically relate to the employment of Draculas.

As it is established that Draculas are physically repelled and burned by holy symbols, such as crucifixes and sacred wafers, then we suggest that Draculas should not be employed by Churches. Mosques, Holy Sites, or Religious Organisations generally.

For this same reason, as Garlic is a potent repellent that strips Draculas of their powers and physically repulses and repelles them, Draculas should not be employed by Garlic Farms or Italian Restaurants.

We also note that Draculas cannot cross running water such as rivers or oceans except at the precise moments of high or low tide. This would make make most Maritime or Water-Based Careers, which includes sailors, and lifeguards extremely difficult without constant assistance.

Apprently Draculas also cannot enter any private dwelling unless they are explicitly invited in by a member of the household. This would make them a very poor delivery driver or emergency responder.

By the same token, we have taken note that Draculas require a box containing soil from their homeland, to regenerate and maintain their strength. This would make modern office environments such as open plan offices with cubicles difficult, unless they are allowed to bring a large box of dirt with them. A corollary of this is that they might find that working in an office environment with indoor plants, quite conducive to acquiescent conditions. 

Conclusion: 

The phrase "Draculas can have any job" is functionally one where they might have the ability to have any job but in all likelihood should not have permission to have any job. This fake internet court feels that it has made adequate directions to this effect.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3513/1 - Ed)

Horse 3512 - Once is an Accident. Twice is a Choice. Thrice is a pattern. What is Nonce?

 I have changed my opinion about the shooting of an unarmed lady in her car in Minnesota as futher information has come to light.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/08/nx-s1-5671187/minnesota-and-federal-officials-are-no-longer-cooperating-in-ice-shooting-investigation

In two different press conferences on Thursday, the White House and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz disagreed on the details of Wednesday's fatal shooting in Minneapolis and how to investigate it.

Walz on Thursday told the federal government to "leave Minnesota alone" and allow state officials to conduct the investigation into the shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent that left one woman dead and Minneapolis residents on edge.

Walz repeatedly expressed concerns about the federal government leading the investigation without Minnesota officials.

- NPR, 8th Jan 2026

One shooting of an American citizen by ICE Agents may have been an accident but when the modus operandii happens identically somewhere else, it ceases to look like mere accident and instead looks like policy:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-shot-federal-agents-portland-sources/story?id=129038573

Two people were injured in a shooting involving a federal agent in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday, according to authorities, with the mayor calling for immigration enforcement operations to halt while the investigation is ongoing.

The Department of Homeland Security said the shooting occurred while Border Patrol agents were conducting a "targeted" stop on a vehicle carrying two people allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The passenger was the target, DHS said.

"When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents," DHS said in a statement.

- ABC News, 9th Jan 2026

This is no longer a moral failure of the United States as a nation. Instead of assuming that this was an ICE agent who should have been trained not to be in front of a vehicle and never to shoot into a moving vehicle, we must now assume that shooting civilians for literally any reason at all, is now policy. We have known for months that ICE, as instructed by Trump, try to intimidate anyone filming them; even though filming people in a public place is perfectly legal. We have now seen that ICE are prepared to cross the line and shoot American civilians. 

Not just once, not just twice but now becoming a systemic process:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/us/ice-shootings-minneapolis-other-cities.html

This deadly Minneapolis encounter is the 9th ICE shooting since September. All those targeted in the shootings were fired on while in their vehicles.

- New York Times, 9th Jan 2026

Once is an accident.

Twice is a choice.

Three times is a pattern.

NINE times is a policy.

We must assume that what used to be the point of the Department of Homeland Security which used to be to make the United States more stable and safe, is no longer its point. The actions in Minnesota, and Portland, in conjunction with the proposed invasion of Venezuela and Greenland, demonstrates that what he have is a slow rolling conversion from sham-democracy into open junta.

We should bot confuse the United States with a failed state. Remember, a failed state is a state that has lost its ability to fulfill fundamental security and development functions. The United States point blank refuses to fulfil its development functions and ironically a very strong military is often seen as a stabilizer or enforcer for a functioning state. 

Welcome to 2026. Behold your god America - Moloch loves you.

Horse 3511 - Behold Your President, He Is Above The Law

There is currently a half-hearted discussion going on in the United States about whether or not, an ongoing military operation in Venezuela, or even the authority to attack Venezuela, would require a war powers resolution.

See here... but don't bother:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33

Now whilst it is true that the War Powers Act of 1973, is intended as a check on the power of the President of the United States, to begin and administer armed conflicts without the consent of the U.S. Congress, it is worth remembering that irrespective of what any law says, including the US Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has functionally declared that the President is above the law in all circumstances:

See below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

...

(1) When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action.

...

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. 

- SCOTUS: Trump v United States, 1st Jul 2024.

If there is a "presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts" and "he takes official action to perform the functions of his office" and the Supreme Court has decided that courts "courts may not inquire into the President’s motives" and "Nor may courts deem an action unofficial”, then functionally there are no avenues whatsoever to declare anything that the President does as illegal.

Even if he were to actually make good on the quip that he made at a Christian college in 2016, and actually shoot someone:

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?”

- Donald Trump,  Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, 23rd Jan 2016.

Then the "presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts" would immediately kick in because all he would need to do is claim that as the Commander-In-Chief and as first officer of the US Military, then he would either be defending the first officer of the United States or making a preemptive strike. Although having said that, he was probably quite correct that his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense, including on live television.

What I find astonishing is that even though a President cannot enact law to regulate something as banal as carbon emissions or something as immediately pressing as forgiving student loans (because those things do not fall within the core functions of the Executive Branch, a President would not face any consequences for politically motivated killings or mass murder, provided those things are done in the name of defence. 

Functionally this means that a President is free to commit crimes to protect his craven self-interest, and it has to be said that if you are immune from the consequences, and if you can not be prosecuted, then you are above the law. 

Furthermore, if as Mr Trump suggests that he wants to acquire Greenland, which would include use of the military force and without a corresponding Authorization for Use of Military Force from the Congress, then we have actually reached the point where the leader of the United States is a broken arrow. We have already seen that SCOTUS refuses to do anything and unless Congress restrains him, with jail time, then you have someone actually in possession of nuclear weapons and unlimited and unfettered power. And that's worrying.

Horse 3510 - YOU Can Be Charged With Offences In the United States; Including If You Have Never Been There; Including If You Have Not Committed A Crime

If you woke up this morning, you will have heard the news that President Donald Trump has personally take credit for not only bombing the Venezuelan capital Caracas, but also  personally take credit for an operation which kidnapped and President Nicolás Maduro after it launched strikes on Venezuela.

The right-wing trashmedia in my country, immediately went into glorification mode, as they try and turn Mr Trump into their precious golden calf and failure to worship this man who is probably a rapist, will be met with scorn. 

Granted that Venezuela is probably corrupt to the eyeballs and probably is responsible for illegal drugs entering the United States, but the actions and comments made by Mr Trump should send very very serious and chilling signals to the world that he simply doesn't give a cuss about setting up Venezuela for a democratic or just future; but merely to plunder its oil and give the proceeds to Chevron Corporation. 

President Trump himself says the US is going to "run" Venezuela "until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition"; though given that Mr Trump generally has no idea about any time line beyond what he is going to have for dinner, there likely isn't any coherent plan here either. 

What should be immediately scary to literally anyone on the planet, is the language used in the trumped up charges which were invented in a star chamber and only released this morning:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl

COUNT ONE - Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy

para 22

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

COUNT TWO - Cocaine Importation Conspiracy

para 26

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

COUNT THREE - Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices

para 32

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

COUNT FOUR - Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices

para 34

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 924; Title 21, United States Code, Sections 853 and 970; and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.) 

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v NICOLAS MADURO MOROS et alia (2026)

If the District Court Of New York upholds this and charges and sentences President Maduro to literally any of these charges, then we run into some absolutely diabolical and evil consequences.

1a - It is worth remembering that non-citizens in America do not have an equal suite of Constitutional rights or Civil rights protected by US law. It is also worth remembering that the US Constitution does not apply outside the United States; which means that any extra judicial kidnapping is in fact perfectly fine as the law stands, and it does not matter if it is done without the permission of or without using the official legal system.

1b - This includes any Due Process claims; because while SCOTUS recognises that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of some of its powers, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States.

1c - This also means that Maduro, as indeed literally anyone else on the face of the planet whom the United States Government wants to extra judicially kidnap, is NOT entitled to due process, or a fair trial.

2a - That phrase which is repeated in all four charges "in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States" means that even though the alleged offence happened outside of the jurisdiction of any of the United States, they still assert that they have the right to charge someone.

2b - The United States not only asserts that it can and will charge people offences who aren't even in the United States, it can and has done so on the past. Perhaps famously in an Australian context, was that David Hicks, an Australian citizen, who was captured in Afghanistan, faced charges of conspiracy and aiding the enemy, even though the charges were invented while he had been taken to Guantánamo Bay and tortured.

3a - The increasing belligerence of the United States and the absolute blood thirsty bastardry of its government, has been perfectly expressed by the United States Attorney General, Pamela Bondi.

https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/2007428087143686611

Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.  Nicolas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States. They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts. 

- Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, via X, 3rd Jan 2026

When she writes that "They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts." she does not need to worry about the outcome. This is means that United States v Maduro (2026), is effectively nothing more than a show trial where we all know that the guilt of the defendant has already been determined.

3b - More broadly, this is not actually about brining Maduro to justice. When Mr Trump openly states that Washington isn't afraid of putting boots on the ground and then offers literally no details at all on who exactly would be in charge, then we can take it as given that the actual purpose of holding this show trial is to present both accusation and verdict to the public; which is meant to serve as an example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors; irrespective of where they are.

3c - We should take it as given that Trump has decided to cross the line into full-on "gunboat diplomacy" and that he has has decided to take a giant dump on his promises to be a peacemaker. 

Over the past year, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is more than willing to use military force around the globe. Even just this last week, he personally ordered air strikes on Syria and Nigeria. During his self-congratulatory speech this morning, he took credit for bombing alleged nuclear facilities in Iran, "suspected" drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean, "rebel forces in Yemen", and "armed groups in the many... Somalia and Islamic militants in Iraq"

<><><><><>

In a twist of dramatic irony, the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley made an announcement

https://www.facebook.com/SussanLeyMP

The Coalition welcomes the announcement that Nicolás Maduro has been taken into custody to face legal proceedings in the United States of America. 

- Sussan Ley, via Facebook, 4th Jan 2026

What is curious is the last line from this post:

https://www.facebook.com/SussanLeyMP

We should live in a world where dictators and despots face justice for their crimes.

- Sussan Ley, via Facebook, 4th Jan 2026

Yes, we should. But SCOTUS has decided that Mr Trump is above the law, and even if he is a rapist, and engaged in election fraud and what used to be the unauthorised use of military force, that's fine. We are the United States' ally. We have no opinion other than praise, irrespective of how many people die in the process.

Horse 3509 - No, You Can't Come To The 2026 FIFA World Cup

As this is 2026, this means that this is the year that the 23rd FIFA World Cup will be contested. While the tournament is being shared across the three nations of Canada, Mexico and the United States, the lion's share of matches are being held in the United States with 78 of 104 matches.

This poses a problem.

The current Trump Administration in its campaign of rampant belligerency, imposed via Executive Order 14161, Proclamation 10949, an expanded travel ban which as far as I can tell now includes 39 countries:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-further-restricts-and-limits-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states/

Under normal circumstances, travel bans to countries sounds like business as normal but with the World Cup happening, the effect of this is that several nations fans' will not be able to go to the World Cup at all.

The travel ban likely does not affect the Players who would arrive on P1 Athelete Visas, or their trainers and support staff who would arrive on AG Official Visas; which is similar to how the Olympic Games will operate in 2028 in Los Angeles. However, the normal route of fans who would arrive on B2 Tourist Visas, has now been removed entirely for the nations subject to the travel ban.

This means that for the countries of Haiti, Iran, Cote d’Ivoire, and Senegal, they will have exactly zero fans arrive from those nations. For the possible countries of The Congo, Bolivia, Iraq, and Suriname, they also will have exactly zero fans arrive from those nations.

In addition to this, as part of the ongoing Visa Waiver Program and the B1 and B2 Tourist Visa programs, that same Executive Order 14161 demands the following:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22461/agency-information-collection-activities-revision-arrival-and-departure-record-form-i-94-and

The Department of Homeland Security now requires ESTA applicants to provide their social media from the last 5 years, telephone numbers both personal and business, email addresses, the names of family members, and perhaps even DNA collection. 

Of course the United States as a sovereign nation has the right and the responsibility of maintaining its border entry points and the regulation of who is and isn't allowed to enter the country. However, the list of demands that it has imposed, especially in the light that the Trump administration is now engaging in social media surveillance and openly denies tourists' entry or revoking visas over making political posts, is chilling.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/#:~:text=The%20Court%20reasoned%20that%20aliens,the%20Fifth%20and%20Fourteenth%20Amendments.

"Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States."

- Notes on Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, "Aliens in the United States", from the US Congress (at 3rd Jan 2026)

It should be noted that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), has repeatedly recognized that Congress retains very very broad powers with respect to aliens entering the United States. Furthermore, Executive Order 14161 seems to appear as though the Office of the President has taken an almost plenary position of unfettered power over immigration. Congress at the moment simply refuses to stand in the way and SCOTUS is absent.

If we want proof that the Trump Administration knows that it can literally get away with anything because the law simply does not apply to the President, then all we need to do is look to the ruling in 23-939 Trump v United States (2024) which ruled that President Trump has absolute immunity for official acts and core constitutional duties.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

As immigration is explicitly defined as a core constitutional duty per Article I, Section 8, then the President's plenary position over immigration is completely fine within the corpus of the law as it stands. I note that even the most authoritarian states in the world do not have such an official policy, with regards issues such as this.

Mind you, given that both former FIFA presidents Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini were involved in corruption cases, that the World Cup was awarded to Russia in 2018 despite its belligerence to Ukraine, and then Qatar in 2022 with an amazing amount of bribery and the country technically being unfit to host the World Cup under FIFA's own rules, the 2026 World Cup with travel bans and an actively increased surveillance and security state, might actually look tame in comparison.

As long as Trump gets the glory like the scared gold calf, it's all worth it?

Horse 3508 - 2026 Doesn't Really Exist: Business Continues As Before

2025 was a year which personally was one of considerable change, some deeply awkward circumstance, and one as demonstrated by the fewest number of posts that I have written in 15 years, demonstrates that many things demanded my time and brain power. I have found this particular period of the Christmas break, singularly helpful as not much has been demanded from me.

One thing that 2025 was particularly noteworthy was, was the rise of what used to be considered far-right; by people who found it convenient to weaponise the apparatus of Christianity. The most totemic event in this respect was the assassination of Charlie Kirk, who has now become a golden calf on the platform formerly known as Twitter and where insufficient fealty and loyalty is now met with filthy insult. 

Across the Atlantic, the carcass of Christianity was worn as a skin and paraded around like a trophy, especially in events like the organized by far-right activist Tommy Robinson. It featured Elon Musk, who hasn't fallen very far from the tree of his childhood apartheid dreams in South Africa, and issues like immigration, free speech, and national identity, have also been paraded through the public consciousness. 

So-called "Christian Nationalism" is often touted as the cover story for this, but scratch the surface even just a little bit and we find that none of these people know anything even basic about the Bible, certainly nothing about anything that it teaches, and point blank display nothing of the virtues which should follow as a result of being transformed from the inside. 

While we do get some sense of Civic Love, it is not expressed as philos but superbia and hubris. The other qualities which should be on display if "Christian Nationalism" was actually genuine should be a sense of agape, joy, a striving for peace and forbearance, demonstrations of kindness and goodness or faithfulness, maybe even gentleness and self-control. Admittedly, against such things there is no law, but in the current political atmosphere, there is also no display or practice of these things.

Believe me, when as a Christian, I say that I am just not convinced that there actually is any kind of Christian revival going on. What there appears to be are charlatans, one of whom is embodied as the President of the United States, who have found Christians and Christianity as a soft target to fleece while pulling the wool over Christians' eyes. 

If anything 2025 was one of those years where people, after having being fed a diet of indigestible right-wing formula, simply have no stomach for solid teaching any more. What we are currently seeing is lies an junk-food-opinions tickling people's fancies. Truth is simply not acceptable to people who are trying to chase mirages.

I write this first post of 2026, with more than a hint of skepticism. Fear not though because amidst this current age of mercantilism, there is always hope. There has to be. If not, then the parading and preening by those people who have no other gods other than profit and power, will have won.