Batter Up

The Montana Green Party is back in federal district court trying one more time to regain access to the November, 2018 general election ballot.  While it is often hard to see the sense of what one does, I remind myself that some 10,000 Montana voters signed the petition to grant us a chance to compete with the corporate-owned parties in this election cycle.

For me, this will be the third time challenging Montana’s election laws in federal court.  We’re batting 1000, so why stop now?  Both previous victories, however, did not result in placing the name(s) of candidates on the ballot.  This time is a little different.  Green candidates were certified for the election by the Sec. of State and county clerks before being removed in July by a state judge and Democratic Party — the complainant.

My question:  If elections mean nothing, why all the tight sphincters across state and federal agencies and the MSM when a no-name, third-party candidate gains ballot access in a tiny western state like Montana?

I hope to find out the answer in November.

How to Rig a U.S. Senate Election

I realize for many POM readers this is nothing out of the ordinary.  There is, however, the possibility that a little explaining may move others from their constant state of cognitive dissonance to a better understanding of the electoral fraud perpetuated every two years in the U.S.  by an army of actors, “players” (and other  predator types) and funders.  Citizen-voters are the mark, always have been.

This particular example is being played out in Montana, USA.  I will be short.  Here we can see on public display another key element — media manipulation of political debates — of the anatomy of a “rigged election.” This element alone cannot sway an entire election, but helps enforce the myth that there’s an organic “two-party” system.  No journalism, no democracy, no moral foundation, just power and money talking.

As a Green Party candidate, thousands of signatures of registered voters must be gathered just to qualify to appear on the ballot.  Montana has cleverly created a petition deadline in March.  I’m usually skiing from November through March.  So, we can add the March (winter) deadline for third-party signature requirements to the other obstacles erected to eliminate competition.  This year Greens qualified for the ballot.

Add the $1,750 filling fee for U.S. Senate and U.S. House candidates.  In a state with a median annual income of less than $50,000, that can be a significant barrier to any prospective candidate.

Reacting to Greens qualifying for the November ballot, Democrats sued the Montana Secretary of State for certifying “irregular” signatures in key voting districts.  Democrats are desperate to disqualify and remove the Green Party from the ballot.  This lawsuit is pending in state district court, which effectively grinds any Green Party campaign to a halt because of the uncertainty it creates.  Try fundraising in this atmosphere?  Who wants to spend money promoting a Green candidate when it could all end tomorrow by judge’s order?  There is a bit of irony to all this, of course.  For decades Democrats have been screaming about voter suppression by Republicans. They even have an entire plank in the party platform on protecting voter’s rights.  So, we can add the list Democrats suing to oust Greens from the ballot and suppress any possibility of voters choosing a Green Party candidate in November’s general election.

Now cometh the Montana Broadcasters Association, cheerfully putting its thumb on the scales of fair competition and open debate.  Alone, this corporate meddling may not be a game-changer, but when added to the other obstacles thrown down to stop competition in American elections, it is significant.  Rigging debates could be the final nail in  Montana’s so-called “democratic-elections.”

The “our democracy” meme is a huge lie we all live with daily.  Repeated ad nauseam in the mainstream media, we’re keeping the illusion alive for unsuspecting voters.  This could be called the “Tinkerbell effect.”  Clap if you want to keep democracy alive.

So, here in Montana, we’re working hard to make sure you cannot vote for the candidate of your choice (association and free speech).  Third party candidates threaten the fake two-party system, and therefore cannot be treated equally under the law, or anywhere in the media either.  The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have no real meaning in everyday American life. Free and fair elections simply do not exist today. And, yes, journalism is as rare as bird shit in a cuckoo clock.


Continue reading “How to Rig a U.S. Senate Election”

BabaWawa, the final cut

“I get all the news I need from the weather report.” (Paul Simon)

Courson with Jim Morrison
Jim Morrison and Pamela Courson, circa 1970

Prior to going through the evidence regarding the body switch done with Barbara Walters in 1976, I am going to attempt to set the scene and describe the terrain on which such hoaxing takes place. Many readers know that my friend “Straight” and I worked for many months with David McGowan’s (fake death, 11/22/2015) book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. I contended that of the seventy or more deaths of rocks stars, actors and hangers-on described in the book, perhaps one or two might be real deaths. My reasoning was that these people were all young, so even if abusing drugs and alcohol (most of that was mere stage-setting for the fake deaths), it is unlikely they would die. Even in war zones, I told Straight, you don’t see that kind of mortality rate. Continue reading “BabaWawa, the final cut”

Nothing is real…

…and nothing to get hung about.

Living is easy with eyes closed.

Misunderstanding all you see.

Do you think maybe they were trying to tell us something? Well, my eyes are open. And I’ve accepted Mark’s generous invitation to blog here to try to share what I see from my perspective. I told him I wouldn’t have time to contribute for awhile, but dagnabbit it’s just too compelling. I was previously commenting here under the pseudyonym ‘daddie_o’ but that username is already taken, so now I’m ‘daddieuhoh.’

A little bit about me: I’m a disenchanted academic. My field is in the social sciences. About the 1st of this year, I happened to start watching a documentary called “9-11: The New Pearl Harbor.” The scales fell from my eyes, and I was thrust into a couple of months of intense reading up on many different conspiracy theories, trying to sort fact from fiction. I’m still at it. I’ve come to the conclusion, mainly thanks to others’ research, that much of what we see on TV or read in the newspapers is fake and phony. We’re being manipulated and duped on a grand, almost unimaginable scale. Our thoughts and passions are being molded and orchestrated. So much of the world we think we live in is a sham, a conjob. And so many of the conspiracies we read about are false leads and misdirection. Waking up to this realization was psychologically difficult at first. A bona fide ontological rupture. But I would not trade my newfound perspective for anything. I’m wide awake inside the Matrix, and I’m not going back to sleep.

Continue reading “Nothing is real…”


An author I am reading right now summed up the attitude of American journalists, explaining why they are not naturally curious, do not ask the right questions, and trust authority figures to give them good information. He called the attitude “Things Are Basically All Right.”

I have seen this, and it is an apt description. Professional journalists are trained to pooh-pooh anything that messes with vanilla:

We have a good system in place with competent people in charge. TABAR.

Things are not all right, in fact, things got out of hand decades, even centuries ago, right under the noses of our professional journalists. They are oblivious, even smug in the self-assurance that they have got this thing down and have better insight than the rest of us.

But I think on a deeper level they are not the product of professional training in information gathering and analysis. They are the product of selection and conditioning.

They self-select due to dullness. Imagine wanting to be in an profession that requires submission to people with no sparkle (editors) who themselves must submit to authoritarians who discourage creativity and protect power (publishers). To want to be in that field, to aspire to such low heights, requires a narrow world view.

But suppose that a few curious souls do enter the profession. They quickly learn that burrowing and asking the wrong questions, stroking powerful cats the wrong direction, gets them nothing but trouble. They learn to He Said She Said those stories and get a quote from both* sides and move on.

That kind of lackluster performance and those millions of forgettable stories are the seeds of advancement. Eventually, dulled down and cleansed of curiosity, a reporter might become an editor! Only the dull need apply.

And remember the editor’s creed: Things Are Basically All Right.
*In the real world, not only are there more options that “both” sides, but more importantly, there are also the “neither side” possibility along with “they lie, they lie, they lie” and “truth is there but hidden” and “ask a different question” possibilities, all off limits. My Dad had a profound observation on the nature of women. “Complicated” was how he summed it up. So is the whole world.

10 monkeys

This is a fable I ran across from a man calling himself Richard Bell. He does not claim to have invented it.

It’s a fable about 10 monkeys in a cage with a door. They can get out if they want to. Somebody hangs a banana outside the cage. One monkey goes out and reaches for the banana. Suddenly, all the monkeys in the cage are sprayed with a lot of very cold water. When the monkey gets back inside the cage, another one goes out for the banana or a new banana. And the monkeys are doused again. Now, when the third monkey tries to go outside and get the banana, the other monkeys beat him up, because they don’t want to get doused with the ice water. And little by little, all the monkeys in the cage learn not to go out for the banana. And then, one by one, each monkey in the cage is replaced with a new monkey, and each new monkey tries to get a banana and is beaten up by his fellows instead. Only now, there is no ice water. It’s just a reflex. And finally the cage is entirely populated by monkeys who have no experience with the ice water. They just know that, if a monkey tries to go out and get the banana, they have to beat him up.

gary-webb-da3452d936a0be87I apply it to the field of journalism, where so many thousands of reporters at all levels all over the country intuitively know not to go near certain stories, or types of stories, and who will crush anyone in their profession who does.

Gary Webb, for instance, whose piece called “Dark Alliance,” about how CIA was behind the influx of crack cocaine into the Los Angeles area, was viciously attacked by other journalists.Webb died in 2004 at age 49, allegedly a suicide.

Reporter gets complaints from both sides of a story, assumes he did a good job

Well, it happened again last night. We were watching a TV show on famous hotels, and they were talking one in Belfast where reporters stayed during the IRA uprising if the 1970’s. They reviewed some of the tragedies of that time and put on old footage of a pompous BBC correspondent who said, and I am not quoting exactly but it is part of the journalist’s handbook so look it up:

“Well, I recall during that time that I would get letters of protest from republicans on my reporting, and also letters protesting my reporting from loyalists, so I knew I was doing a good job.

Loyalists and republicans were both complaining that he was biased. Since those two sides of the story need to be told, and both were complaining, they could well both be right, that he was not getting the story right. (Reporters usually don’t.) There’s no justification in his arrogant self-adulation in receiving those complaints. He could be just a shitty journalist.

Other possibilities: loyalist complaints are spot on, republicans not, or visa versa. Or both sides are wrong. That he might be doing some solid reporting is only one possibility of many. I deem it unlikely, as from his words of self-congratulation, it is plain his critical thinking skills are lacking.

Which reminds me: I listened to Senator Diane Feinstein stumble all over her tongue trying to explain who can be a “journalist” for a shield law she was proposing. If she would have just spit it out, it would have been so much easier. What she was trying to say was that they only wanted to protect “safe” or trained journalists, as they present no threat to power. For that reason, anyone not in the pay of a company that produces news officially was not to be protected. Those people, our legions of sleuths and blowhards, are as worthy of protection under our tattered first amendment as any of the paid shills if the industry, but are harder to control. Ergo, no protection.

That’s all she wanted to say, but she had such a hard time.