#538 Jury & Electors

Aaron Hernandez Jury

The jury that sentenced Aaron Hernandez to life in prison on Wednesday want the world to know that they gave the ex-New England Patriots star a fair trial. 

The seven women and five men who voted to find the 25-year-old guilty of murder this week say it was a heart-wrenching decision, but one they made in confidence. 

On Thursday, the jury and alternate jurors sat down with Anderson Cooper to talk about the trial that has consumed their lives for the past three months. 

When asked if they knew who Hernandez was before the trial started, most raised their hands. However, they maintained that Hernandez's notoriety didn't have an impact on their decision. 

'It doesn't matter how much money you have or how much money you make. We're all people, and we're all equal, and we all deserve the same fair trial, and that's what we wanted to make sure we gave him,' juror Jon Carlson said. 

Only one juror, Rosalie Oliver, didn't know of the tight end who had a $40million contract with the local NFL team. On the other side of the spectrum is juror Kelly Dorsey - a lifelong Patriots fan, who watches the team every Sunday during football season. 

While most of the group said that they had no interaction with Hernandez during the trial, Dorsey says she locked eyes with him on Wednesday as the verdict was being read.

Sentencing Hernandez was no easy decision to come to for the jury who heard from 130 witnesses and reviewed 400 pieces of evidence since the trial started at the end of January.

The group deliberated for 35 hours over the course of a week, and decided that certain aspects of victim Odin Lloyd's killing warranted a life in prison without the possibility of parole sentence - the highest sentence possible in the state of Massachusetts where the death penalty is outlawed. 

The jurors will now be allowed to return to their day jobs, but they say the time they spent on the jury will stay with them forever. 

Oliver and other jurors say friends have been calling them up to congratulate them after the verdict - something that has left them speechless.

Listening to the arguments and giving a verdict, is a real challenge for the Jurors. But they do a very good job. Likewise, let us give the responsibility to the Electors; they will certainly elect the best President and the Vice-President.

In the Judicial System, they have a clear procedure and process to select the Jury. It does effectively work. Now, let us establish a process to elect the 53 Electors for California.

In the Judicial System, either the victim or the accused have any associations with the Jury. Jury are no way related or connected to the victim or the accused in the case. 

But, in the current election process, the candidates nominate 55 Electors for California.

It would be ridiculous, if victim or the accused give the list of names for the Jury.

Let us not take any list of 55 Electors from any presidential candidate; at least for California.

Let the people of California elect the 53 Electors from congressional districts. Let the November election be - all about the 53 Electors; not about any individuals.

Let the people of California delegate their responsibility to the 53 Electors to elect the President of United States.

If Jury could act with total responsibility, the Electors also will act with greater responsibility.

The Jury refused to let money and fame came into their decision. The Electors also will not let money and fame come into their decision. 

Let the people of United States elect 538 Electors and empower the Electors to elect the President of United States.

                             

Donald J Trump, The Juror

#538 Know Your Elector

Cary Grant and Sophia Loren are the citizens of United States discussing about the presidential election.

Sophie, look at this picture. They were the Electors from Virginia. In this picture, the Electors were with Governor Tim Kaine. On 15 December 2008, these Electors elected Barack Obama as the President of United States.

What! Cary, No Way!
Electors? Who are they?
How could they elect the President?

Yes Sophie. People do think that they elect the President. But the truth is, these Electors do elect the President.

Cary, I thought that We, the People of United States elect the President. Is it not true?

We, the People is still true. Let me quote from Alexander Hamilton:

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, elect the President."

Those small number of persons are Electors.

But, even in this quote, it is said that, "selected by their fellow citizens..."

Do citizens select or elect these Electors?

No. Right now, these Electors are appointed by the Presidential Candidate.

That doesn't sound right. As per the Constitution, citizens elect the Electors and those Electors elect the President. It is a two step process.

Do we completely skip the first step? That doesn't sound right.

Yes. Nobody pays any attention on the first step.

List of 538 Electors

Citizens do elect Senators and House of Representatives. Likewise, citizens have the right to elect these Electors.

Right now, by practice, we make these Electors are unknown and powerless.

But, by Constitution, these Electors as important as Senators and House of Representatives. We cannot make the Electors as dummies.

People delegate their power and authority to these Electors. Those 538 Electors has the responsibility to elect the President.

I salute those Founding Fathers. They spent so much of their life for the future generation. We need to respect them and honor their vision and values.

Let us just follow the Constitution word by word. Let us stop inventing new methods and new interpretations.

If we go word by word of the Constitution, how does the Election 2016 is going to be?

California Secretary of State

Let the Citizens of California ask the Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.

Could we take a fresh look at the Constitution and follow it in its words and spirit.

A congressional district is an electoral constituency that elects a single member of a congress. A congressional district is based on population, which, in the United States, is taken using a census every ten years.

California has 53 congressional district. I live in CA 18 and you live in CA 19

From CA 18, you elect an Elector. From CA 19, I elect an Elector.

Once the election is over, then all these 53 Electors assemble and then elect the President.

California has two more votes. 55 Electors are needed.

Let us give one vote to the Governor. Governor represents the whole state and the Governor deserves one Electoral vote to elect the President.

Okay. What about the last one?

May be, California Secretary of State or one Electoral vote to the State Judicial Branch.

That sounds nice. What is the process?

The Secretary of State may announce the date for filing nominations for the post of Elector.

Citizens apply for the nomination. Qualified candidates would be in the ballot.

Each congressional district elects one Elector. Then they elect the President of United States.

There is no need to abolish the Electoral College. Let us stop all our interpretation on the Constitution. Let us try to understand the Constitution and let us respect it and honor it.

Then, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and other would have a place in the history.

As they were the last Presidential Candidates had their names in the ballot.

Let us stop making the Electors as dummies. Let us empower the Electors.

Let the Electors with their Constitutional Authority and Responsibility would elect the next President of United States.

#538 Election of the Electors

The best reference for Electoral College

Michael Corleone and Julie Andrews are the citizens of United States. Long ago, they were migrated to US and became the citizen. Both of them are now discussing about the American political system.

Hi Julie, you look very enthusiastic.

Yes Mike. Nearly after 30 years of living in the United States, finally I learned about the American political system

Julie, I have been living here for 40 years and voted on 8 presidential elections. Still I don't understand the system. Why it is so complicated. Why did the founding fathers make it so hard?

No Mike. It is very simple. When I came into this country, the very first book I bought was The Constitution of United States. Finally, I understand the system.

We all left our mother country and came into United States to live with total and complete freedom. I do enjoy freedom; but I could have been happier, if the system is simple.

Come on Mike. In fact, you teach E = mc ²  But, you don't understand how the president is elected in United States.

Albert Einstein said:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex."

Okay Julie. Are you going to make the Presidential Election simple?

Yes Mike. I should be able to tell my grandkids in simple words, the fact and the truth about the US Constitution; Election of the Senators; Election of the House of Representatives and the Election of the Electors.

Election of the Electors. I never came across this. Are you taking about United States or some other nation.

It is so sad. We have been lying to our kids in the school. Nobody tell the truth.

Lying what?

We keep saying that the people elect the President of United States. It is not true. It is a lie.

Is it not true? Then, who do elect the President?

Citizens elect the Electors and those Electors elect the President.

No Julie. You are wrong. I voted in 8 presidential elections. In the ballot, I saw the names of those President.  Let me give the list of names that I saw in the ballot.

• Barack Obama
• Mitt Romney
• John McCain
• George W. Bush
• Al Gore
• Bill Clinton
• Ronald Reagan
• Jimmy Carter
• Gerald Ford
• Richard Nixon

Yes Mike. These names were there in the ballot. But it is not the right way. It is a very very wrong way.

Really? 

Yes. With these names in the ballot, citizen may think that they elect the President directly. But, that is not true.

If citizens don't elect the President directly, then how could these names appear in the ballot?

Having these names in the ballot is totally and completely against the Constitution. 

What does the Constitution say about the election of the president?

Citizens elect the Electors. So, the ballot should have the names of those Electors?

People Convention

Steve & Julia are the citizens of United States of America. Now that both conventions are over, they explore the possibility of another convention, that is, People Convention.

Hey Steve, what is that video, you are watching?

Hi Julia, it is Bernie Sanders speech video.

I had watched his DNC speech live.

No. This is his private video. Bernie was talking to his volunteers.

source for plagiarism

Well, this isn't exactly the party I'd planned, but I sure like the company.

And I want to start today by saying how grateful I am to all of you, to everyone who poured your hearts and your hopes into this campaign, who drove for miles and lined the streets waving homemade signs, who scrimped and saved to raise money, who knocked on doors and made calls, who talked, sometimes argued with your friends and neighbors, who emailed and contributed online, who invested so much in our common enterprise, to the moms and dads who came to our events, who lifted their little girls and little boys on their shoulders and whispered in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be."

You have inspired and touched me with the stories of the joys and sorrows that make up the fabric of our lives. And you have humbled me with your commitment to our country.

Eighteen million of you, from all walks of life - women and men, young and old, Latino and Asian, African American and Caucasian - rich, poor, middle-class, gay and straight, you have stood with me.

And I will continue to stand strong with you every time, every place, in every way that I can. The dreams we share are worth fighting for.

I entered this race because I have an old-fashioned conviction that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their dreams. I've had every opportunity and blessing in my own life, and I want the same for all Americans.

And until that day comes, you'll always find me on the front lines of democracy, fighting for the future.

The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama  Hillary Clinton, the next president of the United States.


Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.

Now, I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic party is a family. And now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish, and the country we love.

We may have started on separate journeys, but today our paths have merged. And we're all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around, because so much is at stake.

You know, I've been involved in politics and public life in one way or another for four decades. And during those 40 50 years, our country has voted 10 12 times for president. Democrats won only three five of those times, and the men who won two of those elections is Bill & Obama are with us today.

This election is a turning-point election. And it is critical that we all understand what our choice really is. Will we go forward together, or will we stall and slip backward?

To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours.

Always aim high, work hard and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you're knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on.

Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it, and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time.

So I want to say to my supporters: When you hear people saying or think to yourself, If only, or, What if, I say, please, don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama Secretary Clinton is our next president.


And I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.

Denying an opportunity to participate in the general election is unconstitutional action. Equal opportunity is given to all candidates. Bernie could had been the Independent Presidential Candidate as he always have been Senator (I)

That's true. Even now, Democrats party doesn't allow Bernie to use the label (D); Bernie Sanders (D) Democratic Senator.

Good that Bernie didn't deliver this speech in the DNC.

Why? Would that be a problem?

Yes. It is plagiarism. It was Hillary Clinton glass-ceiling speech. Had Bernie delivered this speech in DNC, it would had become trending hashtag in Twitter.

Oh! Only Hillary has the rights for glass-ceiling!

Will it be considered as plagiarism if Hillary use the glass-ceiling in her speech?

No. But why does she use it again? Hillary won the nomination.

May be in November 2016, Hillary may have to use the glass-ceiling reference in her speech. Yes, I broke the Democratic family glass-ceiling; perhaps Michelle Obama would break the outer glass-ceiling and would make history.

So, one woman would make way for another woman!

No way! Do you think Michelle Obama would be happy if Hillary becomes the president? Every woman wants to make history. One woman doesn't want another woman makes history.

During the convention, US Constitution was trending. Not only Donald Trump, everybody needs to read the US Constitution.

Why? Is there anything new in the Constitution?

No. The fact is, we don't follow the Constitution!

How do you say that? We, the people elect the President of United States.

No. People do not elect the President.

Electoral College

530 Electors elect the President.

Who are they? Who gave the authority to those 530 electors? Are they Senators and House of Representatives?

No. They are not Senators. In fact, you may not even heard their names. Those 530 unknown persons elect the President of United States. If anyone could win the hearts of 530 electors, that person could become the President.

In the last election, how did you vote? Did you vote for Obama or Mitt Romney?

The fact is, you didn't vote for neither of them or for any other presidential candidates. You voted for California Electors; those 55 unknown persons.

Who are those 55 unknown persons?

530 Unknown Persons

In California, do you know Alisha Aguilar, Karen Chang, Anu Natarajan, Michael Ray and others? They elected Barack Obama on your behalf.

But, who gave the authority and by what means?

You; you, the people gave the authority.

If I give the authority, I should know. As citizen, if I have to elect the Electors, then I want to see those names in the ballot.

That is not possible. Each candidate would have 55 electors. You cannot have 55 democrats electors; 55 republican electors; 55 electors from each presidential candidates.

Either we should follow the constitution; or we should amend the constitution; we cannot continue with this kind of interpretation.

Let this 2016 election be the true reflection of the constitution. Let us have the ELECTORS in the ballot; not those Presidential Candidates. It doesn't make sense.

If we, the people don't have the authority to elect the President, then let us not have the names of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the ballot. Let us have the names of those 55 electors; they cannot be UNKNOWN persons.

US Constitution is not clear about the process of Electing the President of the Executive Branch. Many have been victims of this confusion. It may cause more confusions in the future. It is time to fix the Constitution.

Who are the victims?

Al Gore is top in the list. All those drop-out candidates would participate in the convention.

Another convention?

Yes. Let it be People Convention. Let all those citizens of United States participate in the process. They may get a place in the history as Founding Mothers and Fathers of Modern United States of America.

People in Silicon Valley would start a meet-up to discuss about fixing bugs in the Constitution. Let the meet-up be, People Convention (Silicon Valley)

Likewise, there would be

• People Convention (Hollywood)
• People Convention (Portland)
• People Convention (Seattle)
• People Convention (Las Vegas)
• People Convention (Florida)

First, challenge the current constitution. Go to Supreme Court and ask for the names of the Electors in the ballot instead of those Presidential Candidate.

Then, the ballot would not have names of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Mike Pence or Tim Kaine or Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina.

Let the people know who are those 530 Electors and let people elect with total and complete transparency. 

Then all those investments of time, resources, volunteers and money for those primaries and conventions - all go waste in the drain.

Let us stop interpreting the Constitution. At least once, let us follow the constitution word by word. If people need to elect the Electors, then let us just elect the Electors.

Let us have the names of all those electors participating in the process. Those 55 California Electors do matter. They do play such an important role in the Constitutional process; they cannot be unknown. People need to know who are those 55 California Electors; and their character; and their integrity.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Who actually elects the president of the United States?

When voters go to the polls on Election Day, they do not vote directly for a presidential candidate. Instead, they cast their votes for a slate of electors who have been given the authority by the United States Constitution to elect the president and vice president. The electors are known collectively as the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates debated the manner in which the president of the United States was to be elected. Some argued that the Congress should select the president, while other proposals recommended election by the people, the governors of the states or state legislatures. A compromise was reached in what became known as the Electoral College. Technically, it is these electors, and not the American voters, who elect the president.

It's time. Let people know the fact. Let people elect those 530 Electors with total transparency.

Otherwise, let us fix the constitution.

Constitutional Experimenter

Ben Carson Quits!
Ben Carson does not quit from the presidential race.
Ben Carson quits from GOP.
Ben Carson will continue as an independent candidate.

Before reading this article, you should watch the movie, Experimenter

source: Stanley Milgram

A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.

Both Democratic party and Republican party are the legitimate authority to qualify candidates for the presidential election. They are like recruiting company.

Both FOX News & CNN are the legitimate authority to promote or bring down any candidate in the presidential election.

Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds human to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest that for many people obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct.

Obey. 

• Go to Iowa first. 
• Then, go to New Hampshire.
• If you win caucus, continue
• Else, suspend your campaign
• Participate in the debate in CNN or FOX
• Go to South Carolina
• Then, Super Tuesday

Ask No Questions. 

Just Obey and follow the tradition.

Don't ever read the Constitution of United States. 

Just follow the command that comes from DNC & RNC.

They are the legitimate authority of selecting the President for America.

Conservative philosophers argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, and even when the act prescribed by an authority is an evil one, it is better to carry out the act than to wrench at the structure of authority. 

Hobbes stated further that an act so executed is in no sense the responsibility of the person who carries it out but only of the authority that orders it. 

But humanists argue for the primacy of individual conscience in such matters, insisting that the moral judgments of the individual must override authority when the two are in conflict.

Ben Carson & Republican party are now in conflict.

Donald Trump & Republican party are not in conflict; in fact, they are together.
Donald Trump would strengthen the party. Trump is not a threat to GOP.

But, Ben Carson is a threat to GOP. Not only to GOP, but also to DNC.

Ben Carson conscience; moral judgments will override 
the legitimate authority of GOP.

This message is from Gandhi to Ben Carson:

First, they ignore you;
then, they laugh at you;
then, they fight you;
then, you win.

Each time the subject hesitates to administer shock, the experimenter orders him to continue. To extricate himself from the situation, the subject must make a clear break with authority. The aim of this investigation was to find when and how people would defy authority in the face of a clear moral imperative.

When and how Ben Carson would defy GOP authority in the face of a clear moral imperative. A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act.

It is now or never.

 Hillary Clinton is the best example. Hillary hesitated in 2008. Hillary couldn't make a clear break with DNC authority.  Opportunity comes only once. Once lost is lost forever.

A reader’s initial reaction to the experiment may be to wonder why anyone in his right mind would administer even the first shocks. Would he not simply refuse and walk out of the laboratory? But the fact is that no one ever does. 

The future generation would wonder why anyone in her/his right mind would go through these primaries and caucuses elimination process. Why did they go to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday?

Why didn't they simply refuse and go on their own as an independent?

Why do you need a debate to elect a president? Does the job demand debate skill?

Barack Obama did very well in the presidential debate. But, as the President, Barack Obama had never engaged in a debate with any other President or the Prime Minister. Some how, the entire selection process doesn't make any sense.

In this condition, all other nations are trying to follow America, in building their democracy. Watch,  

Since the subject has come to the laboratory to aid the experimenter, he is quite willing to start off with the procedure. There is nothing very extraordinary in this, particularly since the person who is to receive the shocks seems initially cooperative, if somewhat apprehensive. What is surprising is how far ordinary individuals will go in complying with the experimenter’s instructions. Indeed, the results of the experiment are both surprising and dismaying. Despite the fact that many subjects experience stress, despite the fact that many protest to the experimenter, a substantial proportions continue to the last shock on the generator.

What is surprising is how far these individuals will go in complying with the DNC & RNC instructions. Constitution provides freedom. But still, people would like to conform to traditional elimination process.

Many subjects will obey the experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the person being shocked, no matter how painful the shocks seem to be, and no matter how much the victim pleads to be let out. This was seen time and again in our studies and has been observed in several universities where the experiment was repeated. It is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Even Donald Trump is willing to go to any lengths on the command of GOP, Fox News authority. Just obey and participate in the debate. You have no freedom to boycott Fox News Debate.

What, then, keeps the person obeying the experimenter? First, there is a set of “binding factors” that lock the subject into the situation. They include such factors as politeness on his part, his desire to uphold his initial promise of aid to the experimenter, and the awkwardness of withdrawal. 

Second, a number of adjustments in the subject’s thinking occur that undermine his resolve to break with the authority. The adjustments help the subject maintain his relationship with the experimenter, while at the same time reducing the strain brought about by the experimental conflict. They are typical of thinking that comes about in obedient persons when they are instructed by authority to act against helpless individuals.

The individual is weak in his solitary opposition to authority, but the group is strong. The archetype event is depicted by Freud (1921), who recounts how oppressed sons band together and rebel against the despotic father. 

Delacroix portrays the mass in revolt against unjust authority; Gandhi successfully pits the populace against British authority in nonviolent encounter; prisoners at Attica Penitentiary organize and temporarily challenge prison authority. The individual’s relationship with his peers can compete with, and on occasion supplant, his ties to authority. 

At this point a distinction must be made between the terms obedience and conformity. 

Conformity, in particular, has a very broad meaning, but for the purposes of this discussion, I shall limit it to the action of a subject when he goes along with his peers, people of his own status, who have no special right to direct his behavior. Obedience will be restricted to the action of the subject who complies with authority. 

Consider a recruit who enters military service. He scrupulously carries out the orders of his superiors. At the same time, he adopts the habits, routines, and language of his peers. The former represents obedience and the latter, conformity.

Read the Constitution of United States of America and act; that is freedom; and it is a respect to the Founding Fathers and Mothers of America.

Going to Iowa to Super Tuesday is conformity. It has been the habits, routines and language of the traditional politicians. Do you need to adopt those habits.

For further reading:
________________

Obedience and conformity both refer to the abdication of initiative to an external source. But they differ in the following important ways:

1. Hierarchy. Obedience to authority occurs within a hierarchical structure in which the actor feels that the person above has the right to prescribe behavior. Conformity regulates the behavior among those of equal status; obedience links one status to another.

2. Imitation. Conformity is imitation but obedience is not. Conformity leads to homogenization of behavior, as the influenced person comes to adopt the behavior of peers. In obedience, there is compliance without imitation of the influencing source. A soldier does not simply repeat an order given to him but carries it out.

3 Explicitness. In obedience, the prescription for action is explicit, taking the form of an order or command. In conformity, the requirement of going along with the group often remains implicit. Thus, in Asch’s experiment on group pressure, there is no overt requirement made by group members that the subject go along with them. The action is spontaneously adopted by the subject. Indeed, many subjects would resist an explicit demand by group members to conform, for the situation is defined as one consisting of equals who have no right to order each other about.

4. Voluntarism. The dearest distinction between obedience and conformity, however, occurs after the fact-that is, in the manner in which subjects explain their behavior. Subjects deny conformity and embrace obedience as the explanation of their actions. 

Let me clarify this. In Asch’s experiments on group pressure, subjects typically understate the degree to which their actions were influenced by members of the group. They belittle the group effect and try to play up their own autonomy, even when they have yielded to the group on every trial. They often insist that if they made errors in judgment, these were nonetheless their own errors, attributable to their faulty vision or bad judgment. They minimize the degree to which they have conformed to the group. 

Ben Carson quits

The Pandavas led by Krishna decided to cheat in the war by breaking the rules. Lord Krishna knew that it was not possible to defeat Drona face to face. He also knew Drona’s love for his son Ashwathama who was fighting alongside his father.

An elephant named Ashwathama was present at the Kurukshetra battlefield. Bhima killed this elephant and shouted, "Ashwathama is dead". When Drona heard this he got down from his chariot as he couldn’t believe his ears. He approached Yudhistira as he knew that Yudhistira would never lie.

Yudhistira replied to Drona that ‘Ashwathama is dead’ but then he also added ‘not your son but an elephant’. However Drona couldn’t hear the second part as the drums and trumpets on the Pandava side started playing loudly (on Krishna’s instructions). Drona dropped his weapons and started meditating and was beheaded by enemies.

The son Ashwathama couldn’t bear the sadness of his father’s death and he was enraged by it. He decided to avenge Drona’s death by using the Narayanastra, which was an extremely powerful weapon. Huge numbers of the Pandava army was killed by this weapon but somehow the Pandavas survived.

__________________________________________

In the battlefield, they were not supposed to kill elephant and horse. Still, they did kill the elephant, Ashwathama. Then they passed the misinformation and caused confusion. It was a lie; but still they presented as information which was misunderstood by others.

The presidential election is not a high school sport. It's not even a Super Bowl game. It is a war and all are enemies. You need to eliminate the enemies standing on this platform and then you need to eliminate the enemy of the other party. It is a war. The end matters; not the means. By hook or by crook, win it.

The end result is, Ted Cruz won Iowa. On the other side, by flipping a coin, Hillary Clinton won. The winners took advantage of the situation. The news media keeps all their senses open for receiving any challenges. When CNN announced about Ben Carson, others couldn't take advantage of the situation. But, Ted Cruz team saw an innovative opportunity in CNN announcement and they took advantage of it. In business, this quality is appreciated and is rewarded. In politics also, this action is regarded as a qualification to transform real world challenges into innovative opportunities for America.

In other sports, when they find out the winner have drug abuse, they may take away the gold medal from the winner and give it to the next person. But not in politics.

In general, human beings could be identified as:

• Innocent
• Ignorant
• Intelligent
• Clever
• Cunning

When born, all human beings are innocents. But then, as they grow up, they lose their innocence. A very few, live and die as innocents. For them, the entire life is a struggle from cradle to graveyard; they struggle to keep their innocence.

Even in fiction like House of Cards, the writer couldn't come up with an innocent character. It is a surprise to learn about the innocence of Ben Carson. He is innocent. Ben Carson cannot survive in this race for White House.

It is not an election to the Pope. It is an election to the highest authority on planet earth. Ben Carson may be a right fit to become a Pope and preach peace for the world. Perhaps, Ben Carson would be more surprised, when he goes through the process in Vatican. It is not a transparent election.  

Nobody in United States of America is cunning. Politicians in other parts of the world are cunning. It's not that they want to be cunning; but they have to be cunning for their survival. It is not the fault of the players. It is the fault of the platform. The platform is crooked. 

United Kingdom doesn't have a written constitution. So, all politicians have to be cunning for their survival. The fact is, the House of Cards original is about the British politics. Only one politician on the British platform did survive without cunning; that was Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill was intelligent; but not cunning. His mother was an American.  

Winston Churchill's political career was a total failure. He couldn't survive in Stanley Baldwin politics. Winston Churchill was about to retire from the British politics; but in 1940, Great Britain needed Churchill. After the war, Churchill was no longer needed. In 1945, Winston Churchill lost the election.

Ignorance in the executive branch will be a dangerous one. In a nuclear submarine, when a person does a thing out of ignorance, it will be considered as a felony. Whether that ignorant action causes damage or not, the punishment is the same. In 2008, Hillary Clinton had a clean record. But, as Secretary of State, out of ignorance about the security of email servers, now her records are not clean. More over, it looks like Obama fired Hillary from the Secretary of State job and hired John Kerry. It is obvious, John Kerry has made a difference with his performance as Secretary of State.  John Kerry may still have an ambition and opportunity to become the President of United States.

The political platform in the United States of America is the best one. The platform was built 300 years ago by the founding fathers. It will last for many more centuries. This is the best platform for intelligent persons. There was no need for being clever and cunning on this platform. Just be truthful; you could perform very well.

Right now, Frank Underwood is dominating in American politics with his cleverness. 

When Claire Underwood enters into American politics, that will be the end of Frank Underwood politics in Washington D.C.

Claire Underwood is not an innocent; not an ignorant; not clever and cunning. But Claire Underwood is an intelligent person. Intelligent person needs two basic things; one is food; another is sex. They have their own list of things as moral value. Truth is the way they live. They cannot pretend or lie. They cannot fake and they cannot tolerate others faking.

Claire Underwood doesn't have skill to deliver an impressive speech; but Claire Underwood speaks truth and nothing but truth. Claire Underwood speaks like any ordinary citizen; in their language. Claire Underwood could never learn the art of the politicians of Washington D.C

Truth is like a new born baby. Have you observed new born baby? a fresh one? You don't care about cleanliness or beauty or fancy dress. You enjoy the freshness. 

Intelligent person delivers truth; the raw one; not polished truth; not with any fancy dress. Truth is naked. The media has been used to monotonous, memorized 25 seconds speech of legislative members. The executive is not about speech; it is all about action. 

Claire Underwood has no experience of Frank Underwood. Does America need the experience of Frank Underwood. The challenges and opportunities are always new and fresh. Experience doesn't help in facing challenges and opportunities. In fact, experience has been burden for innovation.

Silicon Valley is the proof for innovation. Here, experience doesn't matter. Freshness, open mind and learning skills are the basic ingredient for innovation. With the burden of experience, people cease to learn new things. Discard experienced politicians.

Earlier media used to cook food of their choice and feed people with it. Media never try to understand about people and their need. People need is to learn truth. People do not want to listen to speech. People would enjoy action.

With social media, with her intelligence, Claire Underwood enters into the presidential race of United States of America on March 4.

  

  

GOP nominates Marco Rubio

The Grand Old Party nominates Marco Rubio as Republican presidential candidate. With Marco nomination, it will become a Grand Young Party. Marco may choose a young lady for Vice Presidential candidate. May be an african-american VP.  That is GOP plan for 2016.

On the Democrats side, Hillary Clinton won the nomination. Hillary fought with the establishment about the tie and made them to declare a win for Hillary. Bernie Sanders was in the same situation of Al Gore 2000.

Both political establishments have decided their candidates. It will be between Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. The pattern continues. It's Republican turn to live in the White House. Marco Rubio will be the President of United States of America. The entire continent of America, from Canada to Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Brazil and Argentina, also from Spain and Portugal would celebrate Marco's victory. All others could now go home and enjoy their life.

American politics is Frank Underwood's House of Cards. The world witnessed it at Iowa.

Come on! Flip a coin!!!

And you call this as the most advanced and developed nation on earth. The Chinese are laughing at this democracy. In India, they have microprocessor based electronic voting machine and they announce results in fraction of a second to a very high precision value. What would you do, if there are more than two candidates; would you roll a dice.

Why don't you adopt the soccer game plan? Give an extra time for the game and then if it is still a tie, then give a penalty shot and then a sudden death way.

Ted Cruz. Iowa is not a win for Ted. GOP cannot take a chance on Ted. Ted is not eligible for the Executive President. So, GOP chose Marco Rubio.

It's Frank Underwood suggestion to let Ted win Iowa and then onwards it will be Marco Rubio; and slowly Ted will be sidelined. GOP had already given up on Donald J Trump.

It is a survival for the political establishment. They are not going to give up.

It is Frank Underwood's House of Cards.  

House of Cards may appear to be a very strong one. But, the fact is, The Constitution of United States is a living document. It is the best software designed and developed 300 years ago by the best team of developers.  It is bug free; robust, flexible. It is agile and extensible.

It is now, House of Cards versus US Constitution.

It is now, We, The People versus We, The Political Establishments.

It will no longer be the government of Republicans and Democrats.

It will be the government of We, The People.

It is just House of Cards. When true people come forward, the House of Cards would collapse.

It is just Iowa caucus; not the general election.

Perhaps, in the history, 2016 would be the last year for any caucus election. There will not be any primary or caucus election in Iowa in future. The next generation would laugh at us for flipping a coin to elect an Executive  Presidential candidate.