And a Merry False Flag Christmas to you, too, Mr. Underwear Bomber

"Happy new year. Aren't you tired of all the false-flag attacks?"

That's what I want to say to people. I certainly think it would be a conversation-starter, but probably not the kind I'd want. I imagine I'd spend much of the time explaining that I'm not crazy.

I think you have to be crazy to think that a guy can slip through our ridiculous airport security even though he had every red flag in the book blinking around him, including being ratted out by his own dad as a potential terrorist. Yeah, I'm talking about that tool, Mutallab the Underwear Bomber or whatever we're calling him.

This whole episode stinks to high heaven. There is a big part of the story that the media is not focusing on:

Kurt Haskell is an attorney. He and his wife were in Amsterdam that day after a safari and Kurt witnessed the underwear bomber (Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab) before the flight being aided by what Haskell described to be an older Indian gentleman who was well dressed. (emphasis mine)

Who was this sharp-dressed man (besides a ZZtop fan)? No doubt he was Mutallab's handler.

Since Mutallab is a classic patsy, he has the intelligence (and loyalty) of a particularly gullible puppy. He needs help dressing, tying his shoes, boarding flights... and making his bombs work, too. (Thank Allah for that!)

Webster Tarpley has a good analysis of this event and the importance of it in the geopolitical sense. Long story short: Certain parties are trying to involve us in yet another war against yet another Islamic country. Yemen, this time.

But Obama and his advisors should be urged to consider a third explanation far more plausible than either of these. This third explanation would include the desire of a rogue network inside the US government to unleash a new wave of Islamophobic hysteria to rehabilitate the discredited “global war on terror” strategy in a new and more sophisticated form, while imposing a new round of outrageous and degrading search procedures at airports (such as the full body scanners peddled by the venal Michael Chertoff) to soften up the American people for heightened totalitarian control and political repression. All of this, moreover, in ways that will be politically harmful to Obama.

But this Underwear Bombing farce is a double-edged sword; it provides Obama and those who are opposed to this rogue Anglo terror network a chance to follow the clues back to the real puppetmasters, and perhaps even reveal the existence of the moles and their shadow government to the American people.

That may be a bridge too far, but these false flag terror attacks a getting increasingly ridiculous and unbelievable. Are we really supposed to believe that Mutallab was alloweded to fly without the intervention of a politically-connected CIA "handler"?

Mutallab had been denied a visa to enter the United Kingdom, despite the fact that his family owned a luxury apartment in London’s West End. His name had been placed on the UK watch list. Mutallab’s father, a prominent Nigerian banker, personally denounced him to the CIA and the State Department as a possible extremist who was then in Yemen, most probably at a training camp. Nevertheless, Mutallab’s visa was not revoked. Mutallab had met the infamous Anwar Awlaki, who had just received a wave of publicity for his relations with Major Hasan the Fort Hood patsy. Chatter from the Yemen patsy milieu monitored by the US contained references to “the Nigerian” – meaning Mutallab. Mutallab paid cash for his ticket in Ghana, checked no luggage, and entered Nigeria illegally, but was nevertheless permitted to embark on the first leg of his mission. (emphasis mine)

This man was practically a walking, talking, blinking red flag. The excuse that got him past security -- without a passport -- was that he was a Sudanese refugee. But nevermind that; Mutallab was the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker. His own father pointed him out as a threat to the CIA and what did they do?

Nothing.

It sure seems like the infiltrated CIA is only concerned with getting more power to interfere with our lives, not doing their job with the considerable power they already have.

This is the classic false flag mindset; it's right out of the playbook the neocons used after 9/11. Instead of blaming Bush for the security lapses they screamed that Bush needed more power to intercept these terrorists. Never mind that there was ample warning ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."). There was also a condescending dismissal of the importance of the warning and related intelligence:

We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

Neocons and their rogue network within the government are not interested in stopping terror, only creating it. They use false flag attacks to gradually expand their powerbase while counting on the zero-sum nature of politcal power to drain their enemies of power. We are their enemies, unless we are their (straight Republican-ticket-voting) patsies.

Don't be a patsy. The neocons will keep doing it until they get caught. And as they get increasingly desperate the attacks may grow more deadly.

Please do your part and speak up so the public is primed to absorb this startling information. I already have to take off my shoes at the airport, which is bad enough. Are soon going to have to fly commando-style? Trust me, people, you do not want me taking off my stinky skivvies at the airport security scanner in front of you. Do yourself a favor and stop this joyless game before the next false-flag patsy sticks a bomb up his ass and we all have to get a public rectal exam to board a flight home.

Liberals and Libertarians Must Come Together to Defeat The Fed and Secure Economic Liberty

I see a lot of common ground between liberals (i.e. leftist Democrats and independents) and libertarians (big L and small L). It's unfortunate that a few fundamental issues divide them because there's so much room for collaboration, especially when it comes to the calamitous policies of the Federal Reserve.

A Solution: First Steps
First, people need to chill out on both sides of this debate. Second, realize that what I'm proposing is not new, just misunderstood. I've jokingly called myself a libertarian socialist before, but today I found that there really is such a thing.

Now, what I'm about to do will piss off both liberals and libertarians, but I need to criticize both approaches before we can find a happy medium. This might be painful for you if you fall on one side or the other, but please bear with me; each side will get its fair share of abuse. And praise.

Neither Side is Perfect
The libertarians, especially social conservatives, need to realize that they do try to protect rich too much even though it's the rich who created the Fed and many of our current economic problems. It's the rich, after all, who can afford to thrive during times of moderate to high inflation because they can hire a team of accountants, investment bankers and so on to ride the rough waters of fiat capitalism.

Some well-meaning libertarians, being perpetually out of power, are gradually seduced into supporting right-wing bombthrowers like Glenn Beck, which only makes them look stupid, racist, backwards and irrational to a liberal. The tea parties have not succeeded because they are partisan and co-opted by mainstream Republican politicians like Minnesota's own Michele Bachmann, tapping into anger and doing nothing to really change things. If they were non-partisan End the Fed rallies that might be a step in the right direction. But many libertarians hate liberals because the Democrats who get elected tend to be corrupt establishment figures -- just like Republican politicians.

Conversely, the leftist populists need to realize that Obama is not the savior they want him to be. He's a politican like any other and he's just playing the game. Note how little has changed since he took office. He's made lots of noise about change, but our Empire is still killing peasants in Afghanistan, our privacy is still nonextistent as warrantless wiretapping continues, and our economy is still in the thrall of the rich as Bernanke gets re-upped for another term and the idiots who supported deregulation (like Summers) get cushy jobs in the administration. Meanwhile, Obama's tackling (and losing) the health care fight when he should be focused on the economy first and foremost. I support universal healthcare, but the conservatives are right to question how we're gonna pay for it. Shouldn't we get our economic house in order before we make massive commitments to future spending?

The Health Care Riddle
The health care conundrum is a medium-sized part of our economic problems. The bigger problem is exactly what the Libertarians are talking about (and what progressive left-wing publications like the HuffPo are finally starting to realize): The secretive Fed's embrace of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking will make peasants of us all.

This government, and everything in it (including Obama) is controlled by the banking apparatus. Look at how quickly the bailout and stimulus packages were passed in comparison to health care reform. And yet we could've easily paid for health care for every single American with the money we threw at the bankers so they could erase the red ink from their bottom lines and then refuse to give loans to regular people. Bonuses to executives are already back to pre-crash levels.

My point is that unless we fix the underlying issue we'll be back at square one again. Unless a new amendment is added to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing free health care for all (not bloody likely) the bankers will find a way to put us back in the poor house again. Congress will bankrupt whatever public option we create unless it is rock-fucking-solid. Because of the inflationary and demographic bubbles we face, Social Security and Medicare will likely go bankrupt within a few decades. How will adding more financial obligations to the pile help us solve this mess?

Sometimes Society is to Blame
The typical libertarian response is to say "Get government off my back!" I think libertarians are susceptible to Republican messaging because the Republican politicians pretend to be in favor of limited government. And both libertarians and Republicans see poor people as failed and lazy.

Here's something libertarians can learn from liberals: Sometimes the main forces that cause poverty really are society's fault. More specifically to blame: government and corporate interests from banking to health care who are in favor of fiscally incapacitated citizens who thus become dependent on the state and the state's favored corporations. Fiat currency and fractional reserve lending have created the underlying conditions that make this economic incapacitation possible.

Spending Our Way to Prosperity
Liberals have traditionally tried to solve this problem with even more government intervention. They see government as a tool they can use to elevate the playing field and give those people a shot at crawling out of poverty and back to fiscal independence. Libertarians have largely cried foul but haven't proposed a practical solution and have in fact fallen for Republican Party propaganda (especially on taxes) when they should have stood with the poor. It is the poor who suffer most from the Fed's policies.

Yet liberals who think we can continue to spend our way out of this mess are sadly mistaken. In fact, we've already spent far too much. It is perhaps the best response to the problem within the context of an inflationary world, but the Keynesian approach will ultimately collapse because the inflation is too destabilizing and it's also incredibly iniquitous. Who here gets a check for inflation each month? Not me, but because of fractional reserve lending practices, banks benefit disproportionately from inflation. Liberals, just like right-leaning libertarians, are inadvertantly supporting the rich elites who create the problems they decry.

The Tree of Liberty
This crisis threatens to rend our nation apart but also presents an opportunity; a chance to end the Fed and the economic inequity it has wrought. And the only way that can happen is by unifying liberals and libertarians once again. Their names come from the same root word, after all -- Liberty. Both sides need to make bold changes to come together, but the only way to achieve true economic liberty is by a combination of tight regulation of banks and specie-backed currency.

As FDR said:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

Political liberty cannot come without economic liberty.

FDR Did Better Against the Nazis Than The Bankers
A lot of Libertarians hate Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but what they don't seem to realize is that he was fighting an all-out war against the corrupt banking and corporate interests who were colluding against the common man, and the levers of government were the only powers the president had available to him. The banker-controlled Fed, after all, caused the first Great Depression and FDR was forced to act quickly to stem the bleeding. Read this link for more insight into FDR and why he abandoned the gold standard -- Europeans had already ditched gold and were buying up ours with their fiat currency, but FDR wanted to work out an international gold standard once the crisis subsided. And indeed, Bretton Woods was an attempt to do just that.

Roosevelt has been slandered as anti-business by many on the right. He was not; he was anti-Big Business. He stood up for all of America, not just the plutocrats. FDR's Keynesian solution was imperfect but it bought time and saved the Union. If he had not acted quickly the Business Plot of 1934 may have succeeded and America may have spiraled into despotic fascism, never to return.

Corporate Power
Some libertarians have not been sufficiently suspicious of the motives of Big Business. They think that corporate rights are the same as personal liberty. They are not.

Corporations are amoral machines that must be controlled. Men should be free to do what they will, but who among us will argue that a man is free to run over people in his car because, by golly, he paid for that car and he controls it and he uses it to make money for his family, so anybody who tries to stop him is abridging his rights? Well, we shouldn't let corporations driven by men to run amok any more than we should allow that of motor vehicle operators. It is imperative that libertarians understand that economic freedom is more fundamental and more important than corporate power.

A New Respect
Liberals, meanwhile, have long regarded libertarians a bunch of kooks; militia-joining types who are all paranoid gold-bugs who believe in anarchic and anachronistic principles. But libertarians have learned the hard way that governments can resort to tyranny whether they're controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans. Democratic attempts to solve our basic economic problems have either been limp-wristed or misguided. Liberals need to take a look at the constitutional principles libertarians stand by and realize how closely they align with progressivism. Most importantly, liberals need to get past the false "left vs. right" dichotomy that the elites use to divide and conquer us. The marginalized, but proud Libertarian voters have defiantly supported their minor party despite no chance of winning.

Perhaps liberals will have more respect for libertarians and their journey through the political wilderness after the last 8 years of suffering their own indignity. Soured on big, invasive government (wiretapping, No Child Left Behind, literal invasions) during the Bush years, this is the ideal time for liberals to wake up and realize that they can only secure the freedom and prosperity by looking beyond the political and focusing on the very most fundamental monetary elements of our economy upon which the government and society are built. Libertarians are not greedy to focus on money; they are prudent. Unless we have a secure gold-backed money supply we will continue to have these crises, and at some point we can't continue to solve them through social programs and endless spending. Inflation creates the poverty that we all fear. It's time to end it.

This is my plea for liberals and libertarians to work together and remove the Federal Reserve's charter. It's time to take back our economic liberty. We don't have much time to waste.

In the wake of the New Iranian Revolution, will social media come under attack?

Perhaps it's obvious to say that there are political undercurrents at work in the Iranian Revolution 2009 we're witnessing, but it goes well beyond the streets of Tehran. This is a global phenomenon and it bodes ill for the Old Ways.

If you're reading this blog you're probably a little more savvy than most, but for those who are new to social media this coup attempt is shining a light on something certain elements within our political structure have tried to keep hidden: Iranians are just like us.

That might not seem like such a radical statement, but when you're in the business of demonizing people it's an earth-shattering revelation. Here in America, our government and our media have been in the business of demonizing Iran for the last 30 years. If the revolution succeeds and Ahmadinejad is thrown into the dustbin of history then our government will not have a despotic Iran to kick around any more. Early indications are that the people of Iran and Mousavi's hypothetical government will favor normalizing relations with America, or at least responding favorably to Obama's overtures.

You might think this would make the neocons very happy, but that is not the case. Blogger Andrew Sullivan has been on top of the revolution from the get-go and he says: "Even I am a little taken aback by the neocons' desire for an Ahmadinejad victory."

The sad truth is that a lot of people are scared of change and they don't like it when their favorite whipping-horse suddenly grabs the reins with his teeth.

Given the incredible impact that social media has had in this election/coup it should not be surprising if hardline forces --not just in Iran -- take a dim view of social media in the future.

The first thing the illegitimate Iranian government did when it saw trouble brewing was to block Facebook and Twitter. Cell phone service was taken down in many areas. Mousavi's website was taken out by government forces.

It's obvious why: Social media is an inherently democratizing force.

Allowing people to connect outside of traditional, controlled channels is dangerous for any repressive regime. People can share news instantly, they can plan, they can support each other and they can warn each other of danger. This used to be the province of the authorities with their rigid hierarchies, their walkie-talkies and their chains of command.

Now anybody with a cellphone can change the world with a hashtag.

I say again: Iranians are just like us. They love Facebook and have a Mousavi fan page with 50,000 supporters. They have been using Twitter (and Twitpic) extensively. (Check out this page for a list of English language Iranian twitterers). And videos depicting the mostly-peaceful marches today are already showing up on YouTube:



As night falls things are getting more violent. It's too early to declare victory, but I think the world is starting to see that the divisions our mainstream media has helped our government create are largely an artifice of ignorance and omission. We are all the same on Facebook. We are one on Twitter.

Social media is the bane of dictators everywhere, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But we have to be ready for the backlash against social media by those hardline forces stuck in the past. They may start to attack social media out of fear. We can't let those repressive forces have their say anymore. If Iran can stand up for democracy, we can too.

Reality's a bitch

Obama is picking moderates and center-rightists for his cabinet. That sound you hear? It's the sound of a million hopes and dreams thudding to the earth like balloons suddenly alchemized into lead.

We can only hope things will get better under Obama. I'd say they can't get worse, but that's not true. Evil has built up quite a momentum under Bush. The decisions he made (or his fellow cabalists made for him) over the last 8 years will continue to reverberate through the nation for the foreseeable future. Bush's legacy of wickedness and the destruction he wrought on our nation's principles and people will not be easily forgotten. Or forgiven.

But Obama seems very much of the same mind as Bush when it comes to the economy and the dire imperative of taking care of the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else. Citigroup should've been allowed to fail. Instead we've given the supposed pillars of capitalism 7.76 trillion in taxpayer money:

The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

If one of the pillars of American capitalism is made of butter, which Citigroup seems to be, then they must crumble (melt?). New ones will rise, if you believe in the free-market.

Neither Bush nor Obama does.

And with those two messing around with the economy I don't either; there never was and never will be a true free market because somebody's always got an agenda and if they have influence in government they will use that power to affect change to their benefit, principles be damned. People who talk lovingly about free markets are full of shit. They want open markets, the same way horny guys want loose women: They don't really love them (captains of industry prefer monopolies over competition), but they sure will take advantage of it while it's there. A "free" market is just one that hasn't been spoiled yet... but it will be. It will be.

The only way to fix this is to reconfigure the fundamentals of our economy so the super-rich don't control everything. But how are we gonna do that if they already do? Are they going to just let us? Fuck no. They have to have a reason first, and we haven't given them one.

Until we do, nothing will change. Reality's a bitch, ain't it?