Conspiring to keep Biden in office: criminal penalties

The scenario: high-ranking party officials conspiring to hide a president’s incapacitation by falsifying medical information, hiring handlers to manage appearances, and lying to the public or government officials—violates several federal laws and constitutional principles. Below is a breakdown of possible legal ramifications:

---

1. Criminal Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371)

The act of conspiring to commit a crime or defraud the United States is central to this scenario. In this context:

• Defraud the United States could include interfering with the constitutional mechanisms for determining presidential incapacity (e.g., the 25th Amendment).
• Lying about the president’s abilities to federal agencies, Congress, or the public may constitute an effort to deceive the government.

Penalties:

• Up to 5 years in prison, fines, or both.

---

2. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519)

If these party officials obstruct the processes for addressing presidential incapacity or succession, such as:

• Preventing the Cabinet from invoking the 25th Amendment.
• Misleading Congress or federal investigators.
• Destroying or falsifying records of the president’s medical tests or cognition results.

Relevant Statutes and Penalties:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Obstruction of Justice): Penalties up to 10 years.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (Falsification of Records): Penalties up to 20 years.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Witness Tampering): If handlers or others were pressured into silence, penalties up to 20 years.

---

3. False Statements and Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

Falsifying or concealing material facts about the president’s medical condition when reporting to federal authorities or Congress is a violation of this statute. This applies if:

• False statements are made to officials investigating the president’s fitness.
• Medical records are altered or fabricated to conceal the president’s incapacity.

Penalties:

• Up to 5 years in prison for each offense.

---

4. Abuse of Power or Violation of Constitutional Duties

High-ranking officials who conspire to undermine the constitutional processes for presidential incapacity may face:

• Impeachment: If they are elected or Senate-confirmed officials.
• Removal from Office: For failing to uphold their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

---

5. Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384)

If the conspiracy’s intent extends to unlawfully preventing the execution of federal laws or subverting constitutional processes (e.g., the 25th Amendment or presidential succession laws), it could qualify as seditious conspiracy. Examples include:

• Actively preventing the Vice President, Cabinet, or Congress from acting on the president’s incapacitation.
• Intentionally subverting mechanisms to ensure constitutional governance.

Penalties:

• Up to 20 years in prison.

---

6. Civil Liability

The conspirators could face civil lawsuits from:

• Whistleblowers or Witnesses: If coerced or harmed by the conspiracy.
• Injured Parties: Citizens or government officials who suffered damages due to unconstitutional governance or misuse of power.

---

Analysis of Scenario

The described actions represent a deliberate effort to undermine constitutional governance and deceive both the public and federal officials. Such behavior would likely involve a combination of conspiracy, obstruction, fraud, and potentially seditious conspiracy. The officials’ high rank would not shield them from legal accountability, and they could face:

1. Criminal prosecution for conspiracy, obstruction, and fraud.
2. Impeachment or removal from office for abuse of power.
3. Public censure or civil lawsuits.

---

Am I being too hard on MacArthur in criticizing his repeated mistakes

 From a conversation I just had with a historian:

I think Macarthur was negligent with his duties as far as training the Philippines forces to resist the Japanese, and had a bad defense plan, and repeated this error in Korea. Am I being too hard on him? 

You’re not alone in criticizing General Douglas MacArthur's military actions, particularly regarding his defense planning and training of forces. His career has inspired passionate debate, with some seeing him as a brilliant, visionary leader while others view him as flawed, arrogant, or negligent. Let’s examine both the Philippines campaign and the Korean War to see why these criticisms may or may not be fair.

The Philippines Defense (1941-1942)

When evaluating MacArthur's actions in the Philippines, there are valid points of criticism:

1. Lack of Preparation and Training:

   • Training and Modernization: When MacArthur took command of the Philippine armed forces, they were under-equipped and poorly trained. Despite having several years to prepare since his appointment as the Military Advisor to the Philippines in 1935, his focus on conventional forces left them ill-prepared to resist the Japanese. Guerrilla training and unconventional strategies might have been more effective given the Philippine terrain and limited resources.
   • Supplies and Readiness: Despite warnings, MacArthur’s forces were still caught unprepared for the Japanese attacks that started in December 1941. The supplies of food, ammunition, and medicine were not adequately positioned for a prolonged defense, resulting in severe shortages when the Japanese advanced.

2. Deployment Strategy:

   • Defense of the Coast: MacArthur’s original defense strategy for the Philippines was to resist Japanese landings on the coast, but the Japanese overwhelmed the defenders. The revised plan—retreating to Bataan and holding a defensive position—came too late to adequately prepare. This led to a prolonged siege with limited supplies, culminating in the surrender of U.S. and Filipino forces and the infamous Bataan Death March.
   • Clarke Field Disaster: The Japanese destroyed much of MacArthur's air force on the ground at Clark Field, despite having prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. MacArthur was criticized for not acting quickly enough to disperse or protect his aircraft, which left the islands more vulnerable to invasion.

That said, some factors were beyond MacArthur’s control. The forces under his command were undermanned, under-equipped, and lacked both air and naval power compared to the well-prepared Japanese forces. Given the economic and logistical constraints of the U.S. and Philippines at that time, a different outcome may have been unlikely. Additionally, Washington’s military resources were already stretched across multiple fronts.

Korean War (1950-1953)

In Korea, MacArthur also faced criticism for several major decisions that affected the course of the war:

1. Initial Success and Overreach:

   • Inchon Landing: MacArthur’s success at Inchon was undoubtedly brilliant, taking the North Koreans by surprise and leading to the recapture of Seoul. However, this victory led to overconfidence and overreach. He pushed U.N. forces to the Yalu River, despite Chinese warnings, exposing his forces to an overwhelming counterattack.
   • Underestimating China: MacArthur repeatedly dismissed the possibility of Chinese intervention despite intelligence suggesting otherwise. When China intervened with massive numbers, U.N. forces were unprepared for the counteroffensive, which led to their retreat southward. His underestimation of the Chinese resolve is often seen as a critical strategic error.

2. Defensive Planning and Communication:

   • Divided Forces: MacArthur's decision to split his forces and advance rapidly up the Korean peninsula made them vulnerable to counterattack. The long, exposed supply lines and poor coordination between units left his forces in a precarious position when China intervened.
   • Relations with Washington: MacArthur frequently communicated poorly with President Truman and the Joint Chiefs, undermining civilian control of the military. His public statements advocating expansion of the war to China—potentially involving nuclear strikes—were viewed as reckless and insubordinate, leading to his eventual removal by Truman.

Was This Negligence?

Your perspective that MacArthur was negligent can be justified, particularly in how he handled preparations in the Philippines and overextended in Korea. The repeated mistakes—such as underestimating the enemy and lacking preparation—showed a pattern of overconfidence. His belief in bold, offensive strategies often blinded him to the logistical realities or political limitations at play.

However, some might argue that MacArthur's aggressiveness was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. He was willing to take risks, which led to some brilliant successes, like the Inchon landing. The challenges he faced were enormous, and he was a product of his time—a military leader molded by a belief in decisive, dramatic action.

It is fair to criticize his strategic shortcomings, but it’s also important to recognize the complexity of the situations he faced and the weight of expectations upon him. MacArthur was both a hero and a flawed figure—capable of great insight and misjudgment alike. Your critical view isn’t too harsh if it’s rooted in acknowledging both the successes and failures of his career. He was certainly one of the most controversial military figures of the 20th century, and his legacy is understandably mixed.

It's in the Art, Stupid

 For many years, maybe too many, American artists have had an oversized influence on public opinion in the United States. Through their art; music, television, and movies they were able to subtly, and not-so subtly dictate an agenda. And the Democrats listened. Especially with the donations, but the artists in Hollywood, Malibu, and townhouses in Manhattan forgot one thing.

It's in your art. Which for many years, was the best in the world.

But no longer. eight years ago, the idiots went on a crazy power high. Four years ago, they doubled down on it, singing the praises of lockdowns and social distancing. There was just one problem with that. Their art started getting shitty.

Really shitty.

And people stopped paying for it, because it was shitty. They found youtube channels, read, surfed social media. And stopped listening to you. Because, no one pays attention to shitty artists. Even when you're a great artist, it's hard getting attention sometimes (At least that's what I hear.) . I had an Uncle who was a mid-level artist, he made a living from what he did, but he was one of the lucky ones. Not too many artists live in a ten million dollar mansions in the Hollywood Hills. I would think you would have to be an exceptional artist to live there. 

Sure, there are a couple movies that come out every year that don't suck. Dune, Oppenheimer, but the list is very short these days. Studios are going broke and dying. Hollywood writers are hawking their houses, or getting them repossessed. The place is drying up now, you can feel it. And they only had to do one thing:

Make good art. 

But they can't do it. They just weirdly refuse the make anything mildly entertaining, and then call you a racist, or Hitler, or some other crap when you ignore it.

Hitler was a shitty artist too, by the way. 

Not that I have any fear that they would be competent enough to take over anything. These people covered for a man who was a blithering idiot with dementia for four years, then thought nobody would notice. The country is a wreck, violence and crime are everywhere, I spent a night in jail a few months ago, because I had a neighbor who was a felon, who was drunk and causing trouble all the time. But the shit is rampant, lorded over by Mickey Mouse, who is now gay and banging Goofy while they put Minnie in charge, cause she's got a vagina and no other qualifications. Call it art, and try to sell it.

No thanks.

Why the framers of the Bill of Rights included Freedom of Speech

 The inclusion of freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights by the framers of the United States Constitution was driven by several historic reasons, deeply rooted in their experiences and philosophical beliefs.

1. Response to British Censorship and Suppression:

• Colonial Experience: Before and during the American Revolution, the American colonists experienced significant censorship and suppression of speech and the press by the British government. The British Crown often used laws like the Seditious Libel to punish those who criticized the government or the monarchy. The case of John Peter Zenger in 1735, where Zenger was acquitted after being charged with libel for publishing criticism of the colonial governor, was a landmark moment that highlighted the need for protecting free expression .
• Censorship: The British government routinely censored newspapers and pamphlets that were critical of its policies, which angered the colonists and reinforced the belief that free speech was essential to democracy and resistance against tyranny.

2. Reaction Against Tyranny:

• Fear of Government Overreach: The framers were deeply concerned about the possibility of government overreach and tyranny. They believed that protecting free speech was a crucial way to prevent any government, including the one they were establishing, from becoming tyrannical. Free speech was seen as a way to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people.
• Precedents in Colonial Charters: Some colonial charters and early state constitutions already included protections for free speech. The framers wanted to ensure that these protections were enshrined at the national level.

3. The Need for Informed Citizenship in a Democracy:

• Democratic Principles: The framers understood that for a democracy to function effectively, citizens needed to be well-informed and able to discuss and debate issues openly. They believed that freedom of speech was essential for the public to make informed decisions and to hold their government accountable.
• Jefferson’s Influence: Thomas Jefferson, in particular, was a strong advocate for free speech and a free press, believing that an informed electorate was the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

We can see from the Dems (Marxists) attempts to stifle speech critical of their policies the exact reasons that the 1st Amendment was, is, and shall ever be necessary to kill tyrants. Whether they wear rainbow colors or masks, they will take it away from us, if given the opportunity.

Refugees Welcome in software package

 I had a really weird thing happen to me today. I was running R test scripts through a pipeline and saw this in some of the html output:

## black lives matter
## refugees welcome

I couldn't figure out how it was getting into the code, I didn't put it there. Then I figured out it was coming from the startup messages when you load the library. This one specifically:

library(sjPlot)

And when that library was loaded, these lines would print out to the screen. The library was made be a German social scientists. Some of the board data science neckbeards here:

https://forum.posit.co/t/how-did-the-refugeeswelcome-appear-in-my-r-console/21296/3

Got snarky and told anyone who mentioned that this was unprofessional behavior, to not use the software. That's fine, but what if I wrote that package and put:

Trump 2024

When the library loaded. I suspect they would cry like the whiny little bitches they are.

No, offense.

July 13, 2024

 Just a few days ago, I wrote about July 4, and what a disaster this nation has become. There are drugs and crime rampant on the streets, homeless encampments everywhere, and rampant inflation. The country was in decline, and no one seemed to know what to do about it.

Most of you don't remember, but we'd gone through this over forty years ago. Jimmy Carter was the president, the country was in decline, and inflation was rampant. No one seemed to know what to do about it.

About that time, a man named Reagan was elected to the presidency. Somewhere, no one is sure where, the mood of the country turned around, and the country magically turned around, ushering in three decades of prosperity. Crime declined, the economy boomed, people prospered. Jet travel exploded, technology exploded, yet no one seems to remember this. It was a watershed moment in history when the mood of the country turned around, and yet no one could say what that point was, when that turn occurred, what event  or sequence of events caused it. 

Looking back I don't think it was one thing, it was a sequence, but the magical thing was we had a leader. We had someone who was tough when he needed to be, but also had humor and knew how to get along with people. Reagan was the magic to turn things around. That, and he know how to get things done. And he didn't really take crap from anyone. When the air traffic controllers went on strike, He fired them. All of them. He was telling everyone, I don't care how important you are, when you try to hold the American people hostage, when you try to extort us, you're history. That was the last time anybody tried to mess with the air traffic control system of the United States. I was thinking about that when I was flying over Europe a while back, and we had to circle for hours because of a local ATC strike. Not fun.

But if anyone asks, "What was the event that turned it around this time?" It should be fairly obvious, that the answer's going to be, July 13, 2024. 

July 4th 2024

 Twenty-four years past, in the days around our nation's celebration of independence, I found myself in the company of a friend in the heart of Manhattan. The city's helm was in the hands of Rudy Giuliani, the mayor whose firm hand and unwavering resolve had transformed New York into a beacon of cleanliness and order. Under his governance, crime had been quelled, businesses thrived, and the city basked in a renewed spirit of prosperity. I recall our excursion to Battery Park, where the spectacle of a parade of sailing ships unfolded before us, their grandeur punctuated by the ghostly flyby of a B-2 bomber—a stark juxtaposition of the timeless and the modern.

Fast forward to the present, and New York has descended into a mire of crime, violence, and corruption. The very man who once spearheaded its revival, Giuliani, has become a casualty of the very forces he sought to vanquish, ensnared and dismantled by the insidious mechanism of lawfare. The architects of this downfall are none other than those whose policies now allow their city to decay—Democrats who, through their folly, invite the inevitable repercussions of their misguided governance. While my sympathies do not extend to those who engineer their own ruin, the broader implications of their actions cannot be ignored.

The historical echoes of a justice system perverted to imprison political adversaries resonate with a chilling clarity. Consider the fate of those in the Soviet Union under Stalin, where the gulags swelled with those deemed inconvenient or oppositional to the regime. Or reflect on the purges of Maoist China, where countless lives were destroyed under the guise of political reeducation and unity. Such abuses of power underscore the peril of allowing the legal system to become a weapon in political vendettas.

In the face of such corruption, it becomes imperative to uphold the sanctity of our legal institutions. The campaign to imprison political enemies, masked as justice, must be met with staunch resistance. For the integrity of our republic, and the preservation of our constitutional principles, demands nothing less.