Celebrating Independence While Mourning Our New Tyranny

 

On July Fourth, we celebrate the signing of our Declaration of Independence in 1776, when we declared ourselves to be independent from England and a sovereign nation. Another important date is March 4th, 1789, when the Constitution for United States replaced the Articles of Confederation as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution promised US citizens autonomy, civil protections and independence from tyranny.

We the People have remained free of the tyranny of a king but our two major parties have usurped critical components of our autonomy. We the People no longer enjoy self-rule because the Democratic and Republican Parties have taken control over who can serve our

republic. The two parties control who can appear in a debate, what topics are discussed and the debate rules. When the parties decide to tip the scales to favor their preferred candidates in a primary, we are told that the party can do this because they are a private corporation. We shouldn't accept private corporations controlling OUR democracy, established in the Declaration of Independence! We shouldn't be OK with politicians usurping our right to choose who serves OUR republic, as outlined in the Constitution!

How do We the People recover our sovereignty when corrupt politicians refuse to give up power and have virtually insulated themselves from electoral accountability of citizens? The

1st Continental Congress

Continental Congress is the delegation our Founders used to draft our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A Contemporary Continental Congress or "Citizens' Congress" could be assembled to draft reforms to address the fundamental issues that are currently destroying our democracy and perverting our republic: getting money out of politics, ensuring election integrity and making ethics rules for politicians that are so strict that corruption cannot exist. Today, Americans have a much easier and safer path to success. Our Founders faced being executed for treason for their efforts to throw off their tyrant and they didn't have the luxury of the internet--or even the Pony Express--to get it done.

What would prevent a Citizens' Congress from becoming corrupt and serving the same interests our government serves? A Citizens' Congress would be comprised of elected delegates who are concerned and patriotic citizens, willing to volunteer their time to drafting the reforms. And no person that has ever run for public office would be allowed to be a delegate.

Why would our government adopt and enact the reforms the Citizens' Congress propose? Nearly 100% of all citizens would agree with and support those reforms, creating a voting bloc so powerful that EVERY politician would be terrified of opposing us. Imagine 200 million or more Americans (citizens currently disaffected by the failures of our political system would become engaged in an effort to reform that system) all demanding of their representatives in Congress to enact the reforms drafted by the Citizens' Congress. Any politician that failed to enact the reforms would be voted out of office in their next election and the supporting citizens would only vote for candidates that have vowed to enact the reforms of our Citizens' Congress.

We the People would be restored as the ultimate political power in our country!

As you watch fireworks tonight, let every gallant stream, red glare and burst of the fireworks display be a reminder that We the People have all the power in the United States and we have everything we need to reclaim our birthright: a country of our own!!!

 Who Are We Fighting For?

The method of promoting propaganda and its purpose

On this Independence Day, We the People continue to live under the spell of the oligarchs. They set the agenda--an agenda that keeps all of the wealth and power in the hands of the ruling class--and we fight battles against our fellow Americans to benefit a preferred political party.

In our revolt against England, we fought against oligarchs to create a nation that would respect and uphold the rights of the individual, the citizen. Now we are fighting for the oligarchy to make sure that our fellow Americans do not have too much freedom or too much power.

If you are concerned about gun violence and mass shootings, left wing politicians will tell you that we need to ban certain kinds of guns, even though millions of your fellow Americans are intelligent and responsible enough to own these firearms safely. Taking a position on this issue will affect the balance of political power between politicians who support more gun regulations and those who oppose it but it does little to actually improve public safety. Expanding background checks and requiring gun safety training for gun owners would do much more and would not deprive your fellow Americans of owning firearms they enjoy owning and shooting.

If you are concerned about election integrity, right wing politicians will tell you that we need to require photo IDs, closing polling places, reduce voting hours and other measures that limit eligible voters' access to the polls. But your fellow Americans are not committing voter fraud in numbers large enough to be a concern. Eliminating electronic voting machines, outlawing gerrymandering and expanding access to the polls would make elections much more accurate and will allow your fellow Americans to hold their politicians accountable for crimes, corruption and bad policies instead of allowing them to get away with actions that are destructive to our society.

We should put our efforts toward strengthening ethics rules rules for politicians so they can't get away with conflicts of interest and corruption. We should fight to get money out of politics so that the wealthy will not be able to buy our politicians to serve the narrow interests of the few. These things would limit the power and influence of politicians and the ruling class, therefore you will never be advised to focus on them by any politician or establishment media news host. You would also get agreement on how to address these problems from the vast majority of your fellow Americans. The last thing that politicians and the ruling class want is a united electorate that is working together to strengthen our democracy, which would shift the balance of power from the greedy oligarchs who are driving our country into the ground, to the citizens, who would prefer a more just society and system of government.

We live in a society where the loudest, most extreme and, frankly, stupidest people and opinions get amplified and promoted. It is good for ratings, clicks and increased viewership/listenership but it creates a false image of what our country is like and what the citizens want. If you get your information from media sources that have advertisers, you can be certain that ratings and advertising dollars drive the content of their "news" more than factuality or the relevance of the information do.

Your fellow Americans are not trying to destroy our country or dramatically alter your way of life. They are not trying to change our system of government to communism. This is hyperbolic nonsense being promoted by the ruling class to keep the country divided. While some people are doing outrageous things or promoting dangerous ideas, the vast majority of Americans reject these things. We do not want to live in a country with discrimination or a country that is unjust. But our devotion to political parties and ideologies will ensure that we remain in such a country.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Breaking Down Obamacare, Or: Everything You Wanted to Know About the ACA but the Inept News Media was too Incompetent to Tell You

As per usual, partisan differences leave citizens caught in the middle.

Last week, the House passed a bill to repeal Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office was unable to evaluate the bill so it is unclear how many people will be negatively impacted if the bill in its current form passes the Senate and is signed into law.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#

While Obamacare has problems. repealing it, absent any comparable replacement, would be a disaster. This is because Obamacare remedies some major flaws in the health care system. And although our health care crisis did not cause the economic collapse of 2008, it has been a major factor in recovering from what was the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Continue reading for the full breakdown...

I. Funding

Tax Increase On the Wealthy

In my opinion, the biggest flaw of Obamacare is that the subsidies that allow poor and middle class Americans to afford health insurance is partly funded by taxes paid by wealthy people (through taxes on Cadillac health care plans, which is currently delayed, and other taxes as well as cost savings). This means that the law will always be a target for repeal because wealthy people, like the rest of us, generally want their taxes to be as low as possible. [A brief history: the wealthy people of today succeeded in part due to the opportunities afforded our generations by the generations of wealthy
people before us. We all for the most part succeeded because of their generosity, vision and patriotism. We were able to build a country that had the best school system in the world. We had the best infrastructure in the world. Healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture; we were Number One at just about everything. But the wealthy people of today don't want to pay the kinds of taxes that can sustain what we once had and what we once were. Their taxes have been radically reduced over the past few decades, leaving the middle class with the burden of making up the gap while losing services due to lack of funding.]

The political influence of today's wealthy people in our politics is so substantial that Republican politicians have spent over $50 million of our tax dollars holding votes on bills to repeal the ACA. The repeal bills never had any hope of being signed into law, so you and I and everyone we know paid $50 million for Republican politicians to declare to their wealthy campaign donors that they were strongly against Obamacare. It was simply a way of ensuring that they would be showered with campaign cash in upcoming elections. When it comes to health care, Republicans have refused to lead, follow or even get out of the way.

II. Performance

State-by-State Variances
Obamacare's performance differed widely by state. States like Kentucky and California that embraced the law, expanded Medicare and set up state-wide insurance exchanges saw a large decrease in the rates of uninsured citizens and a reduction in the rate of rise of insurance premiums. Other states have experienced less success. Nationwide, Obamacare helped to slow the rate of increase to insurance premiums. People who got their health insurance from their employers, rather than through Obamacare, seemed to enjoy a slight reduction in actual health care costs.

Source: http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/
how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/

Personal Bankruptcies
One of Obamacare's largest positive impacts was effectuating an astonishing 50 percent decrease in personal bankruptcies. While Obamacare is not likely to be the only reason for the reduction in bankruptcies, experts believe that it is likely to have been the largest driver of that trend. When people got access to affordable health care, they were able to get needed medical treatment and pay their other essential bills. Unfortunately, I don't know how to evaluate the broader economic impact of preventing nearly 800,000 bankruptcies in the country but it would almost certainly mean a reduction in dependency on government services like food stamps and welfare. It would also mean avoiding a negative impact on productivity and our GDP. It certainly seems like fewer bankruptcies would mean a stronger economy overall.

III. Republican Attacks

Repeal Votes
While Republicans have attempted to say that Obamacare is collapsing under its own weight, the truth is that they have made every imaginable attempt to undermine the law. Had Republicans not wasted $50 million voting on bills that aimed to repeal it, that money could have been used to help solve deficiencies with the law or to fund more subsidies for those who cannot afford their insurance premiums.

Advising to Pay Penalties
When the law first passed, Republican politicians and pundits recommended that their constituents and followers pay the fine and get nothing rather than buy insurance through the ACA and actually have health insurance. This was not because they thought it would be the better choice for the individual. It instead was another tactic to undermine the law. They knew that the more people that signed up, the more likely it would succeed. There is something very disgusting about wealthy people who have great health care trying to achieve their political ends by telling people to forego health care coverage.

De-funded Risk Corridors

The fatal blow to Obamacare may have been delivered by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), when he snuck an amendment into an unrelated bill that de-funded the risk corridors. There is some debate about this issue so I will break it down as I understand it: the risk corridors were set up to make sure that insurance companies didn't lose money by offering coverage to poor and sick people. In the past, those people simply would not be able to secure insurance coverage for themselves so the risk corridors were a way of bringing insurance companies into the program and to allow the poorest and sickest among us to finally get health care.

Democrats said that the risk corridors were going to be self-funded. Meaning that if Highmark made $5 million of net profit in the exchange selling policies to people in California and Humana lost $1 million selling policies to people in New Jersey, Highmark would share some of their profits with Humana so that Humana would not lose money by participating in the exchange. The amendment required that the risk corridors be self-funded, as the Democrats said they would be. This means that the government could not step in with money from other programs to pay the insurance companies if there was not enough money in the risk corridors to compensate all of the losses. In the first few years of the law's existence, it is extremely difficult for insurance companies to know how much to charge customers for premiums because there was no way of knowing how many sick people and how many healthier people would be signing up. Requiring that the risk corridors be self-funded meant that if the insurance companies were incorrect about their cost estimates, they would lose money in the exchange and they may not get compensated. [FYI: all of these insurance companies are incredibly profitable overall, but the challenge of figuring out how to make a profit by offering insurance to poor people is obviously difficult.]

Ramming it Down
Republicans said that Democrats had rammed the ACA down American's throats. This was a way of reinforcing a negative opinion of the law with citizens but it was never really true. Democrats held over 30 bipartisan hearings and allowed dozens of amendments to the law, in a process that took fourteen months. In the end, it passed with no Republican votes but the Republicans' fingerprints were all over it. Democrats started with the compromise position of using two conservative principles as the foundation of the law: the individual mandate and the private insurance exchange. Republicans railed against the individual mandate, even though it was their own invention. [Once, while reading Vultures Picnic by Greg Palast, I encountered a passage that said that the Koch brothers came up with cap-and-trade as a way of using free market constructs to get corporations to pay for the environmental damage that their businesses cause. I had to set the book down to contemplate why the Kochs would propose this solution, then fight it so vociferously years later. It suddenly occurred to me that it was a stall tactic. A successful one. Democrats worked to figure out ways to implement this system and how to make it work and when they are finally ready to pass legislation, the conservatives reverse their position, proclaiming that such a law would be un-American and would destroy the economy. Republicans have successfully stalled any further regulation of pollution for more than fifteen years. The same stall tactic seems to have been used to oppose the ACA.]

IV. Democratic Failures and Incompetence

Bad Optics

Who was health care reform intended to help?

Many of Obamacare's problems are undoubtedly the result of corruption and incompetence of Democrats and of Obama. The health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospital associations were invited to have input on the drafting of the bill which smacked of corruption and therefore tainted people's opinion of the law.

Poor Messaging
Democrats did a poor job of selling Obamacare to the nation. They allowed Republicans to get out in front of them and brand the legislation and set the framing for it. Republicans called it a government takeover of health care which isn't really true. They system never departed from the concept of citizens paying private insurance companies to manage health care provided by private health care providers. Government involvement only comes into play when a person cannot afford to pay their private health insurance premiums. The government gives subsidies in such cases. While some people embraced Obamacare, many opposed it, either because they didn't want government involvement in health care or because they felt that the law should have done more to provide health care to people and to cover more people.

The Invisible Three-Pronged Approach

In the book Confidence Men, Ron Suskind wrote that Obamacare was a way of tackling three major problems with a single action. We would put some of the eight million people that had lost their jobs in the economic collapse back to work in the health care delivery industry and create new demand therein by providing access to health care for many of the 50 million people who were without it. At the same time we could reform the health care system so that it was more efficient, more accountable to patients and would not leave people without access to needed services. It was a way of killing three birds with a single stone but Democrats are too incompetent to convey that message. Instead, they were always on the defense as they tried to shoot down ludicrous notions such as the law having "death panels". The soundness of the three-pronged strategy may have been convincing for many voters but they were unlikely to know anything about it if they didn't read Suskind's book. In the hundreds of articles about Obamacare that I've read over the years and in the many interviews with politicians I've seen, only in Confidence Men did I learn anything about this three-pronged approach.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#

Job Creation
So how well did the job creation aspect of Obamacare work? In an analysis, it was determined that more than one million of the new jobs created after passing of the law were in the health care industry. And Obamacare created compliance and advisory jobs in other industries as well. It would have been very difficult to reduce the unemployment rate by 5.6 points without some very large initiative such as health care reform. I certainly never heard any other plan from a politician that could have come close to being the jobs engine that Obamacare became. (The one other plan was Obama's Green Energy initiative but that was stalled in Congress. Trump's infrastructure plan may also result in a substantial employment increase but there has been little action on it and few details about the plan.)

Disastrous Rollout
The rollout of Obamacare was a disaster due to the web site for patients to sign up constantly crashing and being unable to handle the traffic. Many people tried for hours and could not complete their registrations. This was an unexpected and embarrassing failure because Obama got elected in large part to his campaign's embrace of technology and use of social media. Technology was skillfully wielded to get an advantage during the campaign but when it came to actually doing the people's business, the administration seemed incompetent.

Keeping Your Doctor and Insurance Plan

As we watched the debate over health care unfold, Obama did something unexpected and befuddling. With constituents across the country angry over the health care bill and misinformed by Republican lies about death panels and that undocumented residents would be able to access benefits from the program, Obama emerged to reassure everyone that if they liked their health care plan, they could keep it. And if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor. The statement was a bit like promising someone that you will never die. A grandfather clause in the law stipulates that people can keep their health care plan if they want to (even if it doesn't comply with the basic requirements of coverage in Obamacare). But there is nothing in the law that requires an insurance company to continue to offer a plan that a customer wants to keep. Nor is there anything in the law that prevents doctors from leaving an insurance network, retiring or dying.

My guess is that Obama wanted to convey the true fact that there is nothing in Obamacare that takes away anybody's insurance plan or prevents them from seeing the doctor they like. I also believe that Obama was intentionally misleading with his statements and that he understood that people would believe that they could not lose their doctor or insurance plan under any circumstances. I think that Obama sunk to this low and ill-advised position because he was exasperated by all of the lies that were being told by Republican politicians and conservative pundits about the law.

Obamacare gave small business employers the ability to get out of the practice of providing health care for their employees. Many small businesses relieved themselves of the burden but the change up in payers meant that many of these people would lose the coverage they had and would be forced into another plan. Their preferred doctor may not be in the network of the new insurance company so many lost access to their preferred doctor as well.

The Individual Mandate
The individual mandate is undoubtedly the most despised part of the Affordable Care Act. It requires that all citizens have health care coverage or pay a penalty. The penalties started at just $90 but increased over time. It is a slap in the face to every person who cannot afford health care coverage. Thousands of people ended up having to pay fines of a few hundred dollars simply because there were no affordable health care insurance options available for them. Especially in states where the Affordable Care Act was not supported by politicians, few insurance providers bought in to the program and therefore there were few options and little competition for health care plans.

V. My Personal Experiences

Doctors and Insurance Companies Denying Coverage
I supported Obamacare because when I was 22 years old, I was denied an MRI exam by my HMO doctors because they knew that they could get bonuses and other financial incentives to deny me care and save the insurance company money. This is an absurd situation that no American should be subjected to but there were millions of us that were. Many of them died from their inability to get the health care benefits covered by the insurance plans that they paid for.

If Republicans had come up with legislation that prevented this from happening to more people, I would have supported that legislation. But Republicans did not care about the millions of patients harmed by the practice. Insurance companies are the constituents of the Republican Party and they weren't complaining about the situation so Republicans had no interest in addressing the problem.

When Republicans had the opportunity to "repeal and replace" Obamacare--as they campaigned on doing in the 2016 election--they had nothing with which to replace Obamacare. After seven years of attacking and trying to destroy the law, they had not taken a single step to draft legislation to address any of the serious health care failures that Obamacare corrects.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The Danger of Drumpf

On Monday, December 19, the Electoral College will convene to vote for our next president. Although it would be a dramatic, unprecedented and frightening action, I support the Electoral College selecting someone other than Trump as president.

I believe that the United States is strong enough to survive a Trump presidency. I also do not have fears that the US will turn into Nazi Germany under a Trump administration. But there are several rational reasons why Trump will likely cause severe damage to the US and to the world:

1. The Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump has stated that he would tear up the Iran deal if elected president. Without the deal, there is nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, short of the US attacking them militarily. Trump said that he would re-impose sanctions on Iran but sanctions did not prevent Iran from moving their nuclear program forward in the past. Iran was simply willing to give up the program in order to end the sanctions. Sanctions, like war, would mostly affect the citizens of Iran--many of whom are kind, peace-loving people who have no ill will toward the United States. Many Iranians know more about our country and our politics than our own citizens do. Those people will suffer most under sanctions or in war with the leadership of the Iranian government hardly be affected. I think that it would be naive to think that there are not people in our government that want to go to war with Iran. It would mean billions more for war profiteers.
2. The environment. Trump has expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline and he is
   personally invested in the project, as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline. Both of these

   

   Oil Pipeline Spill in the Town of Mayflower, AR

   pipelines threaten the drinking water for millions of people, at a time when there are already millions of people who do not have access to clean drinking water. There is lead contamination in the water in Flint, MI; coal ash contaminates the drinking water for residents in states surrounding the Appalachian Mountains; coal cleaning chemicals have contaminated drinking water in South Carolina and Kentucky; and other oil pipelines have contaminated drinking water all over the country where, "since 1986 pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000 and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages." Does Trump not understand that such catastrophes really hit working people hard when they have to buy bottled water for all of their needs? Perhaps he simply does not care.
3. Homeland Security. For all of Trump's tough talk about defeating ISIS and Islamic extremism around the world, he has not been attending daily briefings by intelligence advisers. Trump famously said that he knew more about ISIS than the generals. He may actually believe that and many of his supporters may also believe it. I am skeptical. With Trump having no diplomatic experience and no foreign policy experience, there has probably never been a president-elect that needs daily intelligence briefings more.
4. The Vultures. Paul "the Vulture" Singer made his first killing when he bought Owens-Corning.

   

   Asbestosis, anyone?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis

   The company was going down due to lawsuits filed against it from hundreds of thousands of people whom it had made sick with asbestosis. Singer was able to buy the company cheap. Then he slowed down the legal cases so that the victims would accept a paltry settlement or die with no compensation at all. Paul Singer made millions off the deaths of those people, then turned his sights to foreign countries. He began buying up the debt of impoverished countries. Tens of billions of dollars of debt had been forgiven to allow the countries to provide drinking water and medicine to their citizens. But now Singer is demanding full payment. Paul Singer's greed for billions is going to kill millions of people all over the world. President Obama and the US State Department had blocked Singer's actions with a court injunction. It is unlikely that Trump would try to block Singer or any of the other vultures from feeding off the corpses of poor countries. After all, Trump made his first killing by hiring illegal Polish construction workers to demolish his building, before building Trump Tower. The workers were not given safety equipment and likely also died of asbestosis.

I could go on and on about Trump but I think those few bullet points are quite enough to consider an Electoral College intervention as a possible remedy. I would love to have a wild, non-politician, unorthodox president to blow the whole political system up. I would just want that person to be rational, intelligent and competent with a good sense of fairness. I don't see any of that in Trump.

If you agree, contact the electors before December 19th and let them know your thoughts.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A Possible Triple Trexit

Surprisingly, the press has not called the efforts to unseat Trump a possible "Triple Trexit"

The Takeaway

I'm going to start with the takeaway before I get into the weeds with all this recount and Electoral College business: my guess is that if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump told people to get mad about our broken election system and to demand that politicians address the problems with it, millions of people would go out and protest for the cause. If Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow said that people should protest and demand an election system that is fair, accurate and transparent, millions of their sycophant viewers would comply. But politicians and pundits do not want a fair, accurate and transparent election system. It seems that we are stuck with a broken election system and a political system that cannot serve the citizens of the country because we haven't learned that the issues that politicians try to avoid are the very issues that would make dramatic improvements to the strength of our democracy and our country. Instead, we are told to protest about the Affordable Care Act or gun control issues. People comply while our election system is incapable of producing candidates that are worth voting for. If we had candidates worth voting for, they wouldn't be passing laws that need to be defended. They would be passing laws and instituting policies on which nearly everyone would agree. If politicians passed a law to end the practice of gerrymandering, do you know a single person that would protest such a change? It is past time that we stop taking our direction from politicians and political pundits and instead identify an agenda that serves citizens and democracy, rather than politicians and political parties.

What happened to the Founders' vision of the country?

The Recount/Audit

There are two last ditch efforts underway to prevent Trump from taking office. The first is a recount effort, initiated by Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Jill Stein is leading this effort because 1) in order for someone to start a recount, they need to have "legal standing"--meaning that only someone who has suffered a tort due to the election process (one of the candidates) can demand a recount. And, 2) Hillary Clinton will not ask for a recount because the people who own her (Wall Street banks and CEOs of large corporations) do not care who the president is. Their interests will be served whether Trump is in the White House or Hillary is. Hillary is not going to rock the boat on behalf of her voters when her masters just want a peaceful transfer of power and limited disruption to business operations.

The states selected for recount were selected because the election results differed from the polls before the election and the exit polls. The votes in these states were never counted but were simply tabulated by optical ballot readers that are capable of error and can be programmed to deliver a specific result. It would be stupid to accept the election results when every metric available suggest that they may be in error and when the ballots were never actually counted by anybody.

The recount is not expected to change the results of the election for a number of reasons. In Wisconsin, a hand recount was requested but denied by the courts. So, the same ballots will be run through the same ballot scanners and if there is no significant variation in the vote totals, the results will likely be accepted as correct, even though the ballots have never been counted. There is no way of knowing--other than counting the ballots by hand--if the ballot scanners correctly tabulated the votes in the first place or in the "recount". In Pennsylvania, most of the precincts use electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper record at all. There will not really be any kind of a recount there because there is nothing to count. Basically, they'll ask the machine if it was correct on Election Day, press some buttons and the machine will likely spit out the same answer. There may be an audit of these voting machines as part of the recount effort and that could reveal malfunction or malfeasance.

The recount could change the election results under the following circumstances:

1. If an audit of the ballot scanners and/or voting machines is performed and it is revealed that tampering or hacking had taken place.
2. As I understand it, the ES&S M100 ballot scanners are in use in the states that are going to be recounted. When tested, these machines would give varying results when the same ballots were run through them. For this reason and others, the M100 was not certified to be used in the State of California (thank god). It is possible that the "recount" results could change due to machine error. Were that to occur, we would hopefully get a hand recount so that we would better know who the winner actually was.
3. If spoiled (rejected) ballots are reviewed and assigned to a candidate (when appropriate) it could overturn the Trump victory. This election, 3 million votes were rejected. Ballots can be rejected for legitimate reasons, such as if the voter had marked more than one choice for president, for instance. The machines can also be programmed to reject specific ballots with the intent to sway the election. Then there are semi-legitimate reasons for spoiled ballots. If there are stray marks on a ballot, it can be rejected but the same optical readers are sometimes used in other districts and configured to alert the voter when their ballot has been rejected. This allows the voter to cast a new ballot. In states that have Democratic Secretaries of State, the latter type of machine may be deployed in Republican districts while the former type is used in Democratic districts. In states with Republican Secretaries of State, the opposite is likely to be true. It's one of the ways that the political parties game the system and if some of these rejected ballots are valid and they are reviewed, the election results could change.
4. Provisional ballots are not always counted. The "recount" could include a review of hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots cast by legitimate voters who were removed from the voter rolls and/or hundreds of thousands more provisional ballots cast by people who did not have the ID required by new election laws in specific states, like Wisconsin. The spoiled and provisional ballots far outnumber the margin of Trump's victory in these states.

Electoral College Correction

The other effort underway to prevent Trump from occupying the White House is a campaign for the Electoral College to select another candidate. This is also not likely to occur but it is certainly a possibility and it could shake out two ways. The Electoral College is supposed to be a safety switch to prevent an unqualified and unfit person from becoming president. Donald Trump can easily be argued to be unfit and unqualified. In polls before the election, 62 percent of Americans responded that Trump was unfit to be president. And it would not require 270 electors to vote against Trump to select another president. If a handful electors decide to vote against him, or decide to award their state's electoral votes proportionally (rather than winner-take-all), then it could result in neither Trump nor Clinton having enough Electoral College votes to win the White House. In this instance, the House of Representatives would select the person to be the next president. John Kasich has been rumored to be the most likely compromise candidate.

The multitude of conflict of interest scandals and breaches of protocol by Trump in the past couple of weeks will make an Electoral College vote against him more probable. The questions raised by our dysfunctional election system and the restrictive voting rights laws could also be factors.

Of the possible outcomes (a recount giving Hillary Clinton victory, John Kasich being selected to be president by the Electoral College/House of Representatives or Trump remaining the president-elect), I would prefer to have Kasich as the next president. But that would set a new, scary and perhaps dangerous precedent: the Electoral College overturning the choice of the people. I believe that Trump is inexperienced and dangerous enough to take this dramatic action, but is he really? Is he dangerous enough to risk turning to the Electoral College to select a president for the country or turn the decision over to the House of Representatives, invalidating the election results? There is no way of knowing, other than letting Trump take the oath of office and seeing how things go--at which point it could be too late to ever rectify the situation. I'm not sure what the outcome will be but luckily, as an American, I am used to having no good options.


If you support the campaign for the Electoral College to overturn Trump's victory, or if you oppose that action, you can send a message to the electors to let them know how you feel. If you support the recount effort to determine who actually won in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, go to Jill2016.com. We have until December 19th, when electors vote, to get this right.

Afterward

If you want to know all there is to know about elections in the United States, you need to follow two people: Greg Palast and Brad Friedman. The pair of journalists are the foremost experts in the country when it comes to voting laws and politicians' schemes to violate them. If you are listening to anyone else speak about election issues, then you are likely getting utter nonsense or, at best, you are getting unsubstantiated speculation for which there is little or no evidence. If you don't know what a caging list is, or a purge list, or what an overvote is, or what an undervote is, or if you don't know what Interstate Crosscheck is, or if you don't know what "fraction magic" is, then you are not aware of the multitude of ways that politicians try to steal elections and undermine YOUR vote. Both parties commit any election fixing they can get away with. Don't hold your breath waiting for a someone among them to encourage you to get involved with cleaning up our elections.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

No Spoiler Alert

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 172)

Bernie Sanders joining the Democratic Party is a brilliant move at this time. It has been made impossible for a third party to compete in the political system that is rigged by the Democratic-Republican duopoly. But more importantly,third parties have always been considered to be spoilers. They can siphon votes from a lesser-of-two-evils candidate and leave us with the worst candidate winning the election.

With one of our country's most popular and well-liked independent politicians joining a major party, Bernie Sanders is going to re-shape the Democratic Party in very good ways. It will be more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people in ways the party now is not. If Bernie doesn't win the presidency, he and the movement that is growing behind him will continue to re-shape the debate in ways that favor the middle class and Americans that are struggling.

I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican. I consider myself an "independent voter" and I support "independent" candidates because they often look at politics from a different perspective than the two main parties. It's not so much about a different ideology. But I am not suggesting that an Independent Party should attempt to rival the two main parties. I understand that doing so would likely be futile and counter-productive. Now that Bernie Sanders has joined the Democratic Party, he will transform it into a party that more resembles what it should be.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 176)

The Republican Party needs to do the same with theirs. I've not read a better blue-print for how the government should be run and how our politics should operate than in the book Reclaiming Conservatism by Mickey Edwards, the book to which the name of this blog is a tribute. Why isn't the Republican Party taking themselves in that direction?

Instead, their choices for politicians are ridiculous characters that are equally shady and corrupt as the Democrats. The Republican Party could be a great party by following the correct blue-print. But corruption keeps Republican Politicians from adhering to a more sensible game plan, such as the one that Mickey Edwards lays out in his book. The Democratic Party is currently engaged in this struggle, because of Bernie Sanders.

If we can't figure out how to end corruption, then we cannot ever re-shape the parties. It takes a change in perspective, rather than ideology.

People's ideologies generally do not change. I don't debate issues with people because I think I am going to convince a conservative to vote Democrat or for a liberal to vote Republican. I aim to point out where both parties are failing us and how best to change our political perspective so that our interests are better served. The majority of Americans need to step up, do what politicians cannot and guide this country in the direction that it should be going. This is the remedy that the Bernie Sanders campaign is offering.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 174)

We've seen the result of what happens when we leave politicians to making up the rules. Billionaire bankers get bailed out when they behave so recklessly that they crash the world economy, then they pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses with our tax dollars. More than 125,000 people are prevented from voting in Brooklyn, NY and 27% of the voting population (independent voters) are barred from voting due to onerous rules. In Phoenix, AZ, officials close polling locations in poor and middle class neighborhoods, resulting in absurdly long lines and a very excessive burden for tens of thousands of voters. Every member of Congress has an annual operating budget for their office of up to $4.7 million--am I the only one that finds that excessive?--and why is it that when there are financial troubles, the people that caused them (politicians) are not asked to make any cutbacks?

Let's change our political perspective so that those kinds of issues are prioritized. If we follow the agenda of the Democratic and Republican Parties, such issues will never be addressed. Those legal loopholes and election deficiencies are in place for a reason: to serve the interests of the politicians that created them.

The correct change in perspective that is needed right now, is one that focuses on ending corruption. Policy changes are always going to be perceived as affecting someone's liberty. But nobody's liberties are infringed upon when we attack corruption, when we fight for election integrity, for equal justice for all citizens and for serious fiscal conservatism that looks at all wasteful spending as unacceptable, or when we hold politicians accountable. They are the priorities of a well-managed country.

If we can shift the direction of the two parties, we can have two parties that work for our interests instead of theirs. But it will take a change in our political perspective, not in our ideology.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

What Happened to Three Strikes?

The banking giant, HSBC has been in the news a lot. They've had to pay fines in the billions over the past few years. And it's upsetting me a bit that this corporate "person" has committed some very serious crimes and for some reason is not subject to the three strikes rule. Don't we still have a three strikes rule? If so, then HSBC should be given a life sentence, by the letter of the law.

Now, I know that an attorney could easily talk his way around that argument in our court system. But I mean to simply state--and there is no way to really overstate--the absurdity of what goes on in our country. Some of the most devastating, horrific and even treasonous crimes have been committed by this corporate "person". But that "person" is still free to exist and carry on as if no crime had been committed because they gave the government a cut of the profits. If you are a flesh and blood person, you are likely to see a much harsher and more permanent application of the law.

What has HSBC done that is so bad?

The Devastating: In a recent case, HSBC was fined for illegally foreclosing on 112,000 people's homes. In some of these cases, these practices not only illegally took houses away from decent people and caused them grievous financial harm, but it also helped to further depress the housing market. When the proper title to homes are in question, title insurance companies are reluctant to insure them, making houses risky and nearly impossible to sell.

[Photo has been pixelated due to the graphic image]
Sign English translation: ATT: EL CHAPO
DO NOT FORGET THAT I AM YOUR FATHER

The Horrific: HSBC laundered drug money for Mexican drug cartels. So, when you hear of all of the people in Mexico who are found brutally murdered, know that HSBC has played a vital role in helping the murderers conduct business.

The Traitorous: HSBC conducted illegal business with Iran that was forbidden due to economic sanctions on the authoritarian country. Think about this for a moment... when the United States and our ally nations were trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to prevent them from being able to build a nuclear weapon, HSBC was undermining the strength of our bargaining position so that they could make a buck! This is not just an offense against the US government, but it is an offense against all of the people of the world!!!

Iranian nuclear facilities

Republican politicians criticized President Obama, saying that the deal with Iran was "weak". President Obama said that the US got the best deal that we could get. But no politician of either party will point the finger at HSBC and say that they were responsible for undermining our position in the negotiations. With HSBC violating the sanctions against Iran, Iran was under less pressure than they would have been. They certainly would have been willing to give up more for relief if HSBC wasn't already providing some relief from the sanctions, illegally.

When corporations commit horrible crimes, the executives who made the decisions to act illegally need to face criminal charges! Otherwise, the criminal and extremely destructive behavior will continue. When the mortgage crisis was reaching its pinnacle, it was discovered that politicians who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the banks to make sure their operations were above board, were asleep on the job... and getting below market rates on their on personal mortgages from the banks. Those politicians--who acted criminally and failed to perform their job duties--never faced any consequences either.

Considering that corporate crime is extremely costly, destructive and nefarious, would citizens be wise not to make it a primary focus of their efforts? But how can We the People ensure that corporate criminals are held accountable when their cronies in government want to let corporate criminals shirk any accountability? A Citizens' Congress could impose ethics rules on federal politicians that are so strict, that no politician would dare to violate them. And if a politician did violate the stricter ethics rules, they would immediately be removed from office, per a Citizens' Congress established Zero Tolerance policy on corruption.

If you haven't heard of the Citizens' Congress, it's because it doesn't yet exist. But hopefully this article has made a good argument for why we should have a Citizens' Congress. A Citizens Congress could feasibly be formed and operational with just a few months of effort. The continued decline of our country and increased depravity and criminality in government and in business are clear indications that We the People need to engage in politics in different ways in order to effectuate the change we desire but that politicians have consistently failed to deliver on. We need innovative approaches so that our efforts in reforming government can be successful. A Citizens' Congress is one innovative idea that can deliver on major reforms. The old model of supporting and donating to political parties and politicians  has proven to be ineffective.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A New Political System...

Q: Who is better at ridding the government of corruption,
Democrats or Republicans?
A: "No". (also accepted: "Neither", or side-splitting laughter.)

Here's an idea: let's re-examine the efficacy of a political system whereby multi-millionaire, career politicians are elected to create public policy.

These people never find any common sense solutions to problems because there is often no money to be made in doing so. From what I have seen, they instead run around chasing after billions of dollars with which they intend to further enrich themselves and their cronies, thereby bolstering their political power and allowing them to continue the cycle.

Citizens that wish to eliminate corruption will face
sophisticated resistance from special interests that
have nearly limitless resources!

A good candidate on the other hand, would be good at identifying wasteful programs and finding ways to eliminate them, and identifying needs of the people and coming up with viable and sensible ways to address those needs. Their focus would be on the correct targets: creating a fairer system and a government that is accountable to the people. The status quo politicians focus more on progressing their political agenda to increase their wealth and political power. That distinction--between a hypothetical non-partisan, solution-based politician and the status quo politicians--is far greater than the minimal differences between liberals and conservatives.

This candidate may be rough around the edges, s/he may not have Mitt Romney's tailor or John Edwards' image consultants but s/he would have a propensity for finding viable, common sense solutions. An approach such as that--focused on eliminating corruption and government waste--would allow us to reduce government spending while providing plenty of money for a sound safety net for the nation's truly needy people. The conservative citizens and the liberal citizens could both get what they want. Instead, we are told that the way to succeed politically is to fight each other to prevent the opposition from getting anything they want. Honestly, I don't see the wisdom in it. Do we really want lower taxes AND NO public assistance for veterans and military families? Do we really want public assistance programs for needy people WITH NO attention to the fiscal responsibility or sustainability of those programs?

Neither party has the right answer so the game has become to change the question from "What is the best policy?" to "What wins elections and generates campaign contributions?" Where are our interests represented in that? They are not. So, we either need to change the system or we will be destroyed by it.

I may be shouting this message to an empty coliseum, but I'm not going to go down without shouting. I don't care if the message of government effectiveness and efficiency over political idealism is never embraced by the Democratic or Republican leadership or by the pundits (who are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than to find common ground or solutions to problems). I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue against the logical soundness of the position. And I hope that the majority of the country will soon come to the same realization.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/